Talk:Xkcd/Archive 3

XKCD and page vandalism
This constant editing of anything XKCD mentions is getting ridiculous. At best it is akin to a raid from 4chan, at worse it belittles the credibility of Wikipedia and reduces it to an XKCD fansite.

Could some editor with a bit more knowledge/authority than I propose a movement to have XKCD banned/regulated in the same way scientology has been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.41 (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's unlikely to happen. Scientology was ruled, over a long period, to have been, as a collective group, altering articles to meet a certain agenda.  Those edits resulted in long, protracted edit wars that did nothing but serve to disrupt the community while advance their own, personal goals.


 * That's not what we're seeing here. There have been five edits in five days, and 20 in 18 days - that's actually pretty low given the topic and interested parties.  Editing like you mention is exactly what should be going on in order to improve the article.  For example, right here Soap disagreed with an edit, reverted it, and then TPH found a way to compromise.  Only one real edit was ridiculous, and that was Earth trying (success?) to be funny. ~ Amory (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any "constant editing of anything xkcd mentions". Sure, we got Neutrality Schmeutrality and the Rule 34 thing, but those were months apart. Sure, there is junk added here from time to time, but it's really not troublesome enough to require page protection or anything. 217.22.232.41, if you think the xkcd-related editing is out of hand, become a regular editor and see some articles that have really gotten out of hand ;). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The anon is probably referring to the recent Voynich manuscript changes. But that's a fairly isolated incident, and a huge exaggeration to think it is a serious problem. Plus we love xkcd! -- Quiddity (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "isolated incident"? That's funny! because it's definitely not true.  Wood still gets hit all the time.  Any time xkcd references something even remotely wikipediable, I tab over to watch the fun.  It's like clockwork.  Sometimes Randal does it on purpose, but he's referenced this site so many times that I bet there are now fans that look for ways to invent a WP mission out of each comic.  As for what to do about it... semi-protecting articles affected by the comic as soon as the activities start isn't a bad option, though most of the "vandalism" is in the form of adding silly/nonsense sections rather than being truly destructive.  I know people don't like the idea of having an automatic protection pop up, but inevitable and automatic are only separated by a few hours of revert wars.  For me this remains a spectator sport.  NJGW (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is not just an xkcd thing, it also happens any time Wikipedia is mentioned on Dinosaur Comics, for example, or just about any widely read website, tv show, etc. I think your habit of semi-protecting articles is more or less on the right track...generally what I do is if I notice a comic or something that looks like it might prompt some vandalism, I go over to the relevant talk page and leave people a heads-up so they know what to expect, and then allow the page to be protected quickly if vandalism starts. Sometimes these things don't materialize into any vandalism, so there's not necessarily any reason to pre-emptively protect them...but if you leave people a warning, then once the vandalism does start they'll at least know what caused it, rather than wondering if it's something random, so they'll be better able to protect it right away. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an internet thing. When something happens in our world, people flock to the internet for their own reasons - some good, some neutral, some bad.  Wikipedia is no different than Google or /. or NYT or any other source of information; it's just easier to effect. ~ Amory (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Frequency vandalised today by XKCD people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.232.41 (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isolated incident, insignificant. There's no need to catalogue every xkcd-related instance of vandalism that ever happens. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My talk page has a soapbox-style rant on this subject. I know we can't stop drive-by editors, but do we wikipedians need to note on every single page that Randall has or has not made a comic referring to it? Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Random mention
I'll just leave this here for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/books/review/Douthat-t.html --Gwern (contribs) 14:16 20 June 2009 (GMT)
 * i did a serach on that article after downloading it onto a word documen and XKCD is not mentioned EVEN ONCE on that page!!! it should not be incorporated into thie arilce and I recomend that you strike it from this talk page to avoid misleaidng anyone else into adding it unnecsairly. Smith Jones (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first few lines of the article are a reference to an xkcd comic, however. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, it does mention xkcd...no more than that, though. It's not enough to put in this article (there wouldn't even be anything to say, really, other than "this guy mentioned xkcd once". r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

XKCD sucks website
Link should be placed to http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com to be fair, and show xkcd's supporters and detractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.157.127 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 September 2009
 * Not a notable website; anyone can make up their own blog. If you want to "be fair", find a real, published review and link that instead.. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can make their own website and register their own domain name and publish their own views in that as well. I would argue that putting content out on the web is 'publishing' in the same way that xkcd 'publishes' web comics. That blog has been running for over a year, reviewing every single comic since March 2008, has been attracting about 50-100 comments per post, has frequent guest contributors, and an ever growing and expanding community with regular known members and sub-communities (the meta sites and the xkcdcouldbebetter forum). A member of the community also created the xkcd font (humor-sans) for use within the xkcdcouldbebetter sub-community. I believe it more than meets notability for an established community for criticism of this particular webcomic. --Capnchicken (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe once the NYT or some other major newspaper has reviewed that site, then, it can be mentioned here. xkcd itself has been reviewed in several major publications, which is why it has an article here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe once it gets reviewed in the NYT or some other major news article it would deserve its own article. I think you maybe taking your nobility rules a bit far for appending a known, established, and active community that criticizes something that already has its own article. --Capnchicken (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say it fails WP:ELNO item number 11: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * this exception is meant to be very limited, this exception is meant to be very limited, it looks to be a useful exception for the bios of living persons, however, this is a webcomic, not a person. In fact for most discussion on reliable sources seem to have safe guards for living people and not webcomics. Also see line item 4 here, where reliable does not necessarily have to be proved, only knowledgeable.--Capnchicken (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're getting things backwards. The "exception" that is limited is the one that allows some blogs to be linked (i.e., the definition of someone who is a "recognized authority", and thus can have their blog linked, is very limited). For everyone else, their blogs shouldn't be linked. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did indeed misread that as applying to the whole line instead of only applying to the portion after the comma. I still believe it meets line item 4 as a link to be considered--Capnchicken (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Badly written rants. As irrelevant as all the ihategoogletodaybecause rant sites are. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition the above comments, I believe it also fails to meet the "from knowledgeable sources" requirement of the fourth "To be considered," as Quiddity so eloquently puts it. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 03:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, all in all, I think this link has been "considered" (many times, in fact), just as Capnchicken requests. After careful consideration, though, there has always been consensus not to include it. (After careful consideration, I have decided not to endorse your park.) <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And it will probably not be considered until the article's editors are less biased (going by your Jurassic Park reference, which I'm assuming is not coincidence). As for this being considered many times before, I call foul. (it might have been linked to before without discussion, but I didn't feel like parsing the history of the article, and this is the first time it was mentioned on this talk page, AFAIK since I only see one archive). As I see no Wikipedia policy article on how to discern knowledgeable sources, I cannot discuss the points of what is and what is not a knowledgeable source, a blog that teeters on the obsessive with that particular comic and in my opinion deconstructs the humor (or lack thereof) quite well is a knowledgeable source of information. --Capnchicken (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How does liking Jurassic Park make me biased? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 03:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 87 135 155 531 and I'm sure that's not all of them.--Capnchicken (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. If I like Jurassic Park, I must also like xkcd. Stunning... <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not rock solid logic, but there have been worse correlations in history. --Capnchicken (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'd better stop editing Wikipedia; I can't be trusted anymore. Oh, and while we're on self-criticism... I also liked Bottle Rocket. Sorry, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, regardless of what the dinos think, you seem to be missing the point. You keep arguing that this blog should meet the standards of "external links to be considered". Ok, fine. We are considering it right here. And I could four editors so far who have considered it and said "no, let's not add it". <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I am simply rebutting the objections and not editing the article, what's the problem? Also this.--Capnchicken (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A blog, such as this, is not a reliable source. Couching your rebuttal in terms of an ad hominem argument will not endear anyone to a promotional link. Period. tedder (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part was ad hominem, what Quiddity said, or the part where I aluded that there is bias on a webcomic's wikipedia page whose niche audience seems to overlap quite well with wikipedia editors? It's on Soap's user page! Sorry for extrapolating. inb4 605. --Capnchicken (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, that would be the one. I'm not going to bother being too witty here, I'm tired; this is a non-notable blog.  End of story.  I don't care what the content is, or what article you would want to use it in.  A non-notable blog does not meet the standards for inclusion to wikipedia.  There are plenty of other places you can reference it, just not here; maybe you want to go work it into Encyclopedia Dramatica, or some other such wiki.  Don' know, don' care.  You've got a solid consensus here based on straight-interpretation of Wiki guidelines, so unless you can find some reputable news source that has mentioned this blog, there really isn't more to say. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking that I wanted the link gone just because I like xkcd, I can assure you that isn't the reason. In fact, I think it's a pretty amusing blog, and I imagine most xkcd fans wouldn't really mind having it there.  It's not as if xkcd fans believe that all people must love xkcd for it to be a good webcomic and that the existence of a site for people who don't like it somehow proves that it's not a good webcomic.  No, I just removed the link for the reason I said I did ... non-notable blogs* aren't allowed in under normal circumstances because otherwise we would be flooded with them.  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 03:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *Some blogs are notable; e.g. Stuff White People Like. -- <B>Soap</B>
 * Simply being opposed to/not liking a topic is not noteable enough. I could make a blog on the topic 'Futurama Sucks', but that does not mean it must be included in the Futurama article. Lots42 (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it should be included because it has an opposing view, see my reasons further up. As far as notability is concerned, I'm not trying to create a seperate article, therefor in regards to notability: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." Soap mentioned a blog that is considered notable, however that blog also has its own separate article, which again goes beyond the scope of what I requested. I tried to add an external link, not create an entire new article.

The scope of arguments should be limited to the policy which Soap quoted earlier when he removed the link. I believe the link meets the qualification of a RS as a statement of opinion on something that is not a living person in a vacuum. I also see that because these statements of opinion are in a self published blog, they fail point 11 on Links normally to be avoided(quoted by Soap when he removed the link). As far as the exception in point 11 goes, I have failed to prove that the blog in question is "an established expert on the topic" by providing something where the author was "published by reliable third-party publications", this can still be provided but it will have to be at a later date or by someone else, so as of now I concede this point.

My main contention was that I did not have to prove Reliable Source or Notability, based on point 4 here. And that is "based on straight-interpretation of Wiki guidelines". I only have to consider whether or not it "contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources".

There is no contention that it contains information on the subject of the article, so the only thing up for consideration should be whether or not it is a knowledgeable source regardless of reliability or notability. Of these arguments I see one from Quiddity calling it "badly written rants" and a concurrence from Amory, all other arguments against as far as I can see are out of scope of point 4 which in it of itself concedes that it was writen for "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources". So as of now I see a consensus of 2 to 2 (including the anon ip, which was not me). --Capnchicken (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right that this blog is an excellent source for verifying what "Carl"'s opinion is. The problem, though, is that Wikipedia doesn't care about Carl. If we were using a blog as a source for, say, Condoleeza Rice's opinion about something, that would be another matter entirely. But for just some random person, no; you know what they say about opinions. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of undue weight. This source is not significant or reliable in any way. Chillum 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Both points are out of scope. There is no contention that it contains information on the subject of the article, so the only thing up for consideration should be whether or not it is a knowledgeable source regardless of reliability or notability. Point 4. Opinions should form the basis of a total consensus, especially if there is or is not a relevant article in determining a knowledgeable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capnchicken (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 September 2009

See WP:NPOV and WP:Reliable sources please. For that matter read the rest of WP:External links, from the links to avoid section: "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority". This author is not a recognized authority on the subject, it is just some guy with an opinion. Those points are very much within scope, what you mention is not the only thing up for consideration. Chillum 00:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned and read through both of those articles, especially the part you are referring to, extensively. I have also conceded that point for the time being. It still doesn't negate my argument, as the point I'm referring to has been written for non-RS's. As far as undue weight, I'll concede that to be a point of contention due to the connotation of the name and that no one has not provided proof of a verifiable large minority (which will be difficult given that the subject of the article is a webcomic, and the spirit of the policy seems to revolve around junk science). I don't think it will change the total article's weight in a significant manner, but it would change the external links section in a vacuum because the only other external link is to the official site. --Capnchicken (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't a credible source. It's against consensus (see this long discussion). It's what Bob thinks about xkcd, nothing more. Your enthusiasm for adding the link is appreciated but you are effectively wikilawyering and beating at a dead horse. If you continue on, I suggest other editors treat this as trolling by not feeding the trolls and by not responding. It's been made very clear. tedder (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm being called a troll and a wikilawyer for reading and interpreting the same policies that have been thrown at me? I'm the one beating a dead horse after I just clearly conceded? You have some nerve complaining to me about ad hominem. --Capnchicken (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a bunch of fanboys who frequent Talk:Xkcd don't count as consensus. Capnchicken has a valid point, the article is heavily biased in favor of xkcd and some balance is needed. It is also overloaded with pointless trivia. More than half of the references are to the comic itself. So, it's a bit rich for you to namedrop Wikipedia policies, when this particular article already doesn't conform to them in any way.  Grue   20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Don't add sewage to the already-polluted pond. I think everyone here can agree that the article is junk and needs to be cleaned up, if anyone comes along with the time or inclination to do it. That doesn't mean more junk should be added. If you think there's a POV problem, fix it by removing POV junk, not by adding opposite POV junk.
 * I should also remind everyone that it's not Wikipedia's job to determine whether or not a comic, or any other creative work, is "good" or "funny". We only report on what makes it notable and what critical reaction is available from reliable sources&mdash;by doing such, we're not writing about how good or bad the comic is, but just about what reliable sources have said on it. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought, I should also mention how ridiculous a statement like "heavily biased in favor of xkcd" is. First of all, I don't see a single sentence in here saying "xkcd is great and here's why..."; the article certainly has too much trivia and junk, but I don't see POV statements. Secondly, it's not like this is One-child policy or Intelligent design or some other highly controversial issue where people don't agree on what's right or wrong. It's a freaking webcomic. What do "for" and "against" even mean&mdash;I like it and I don't like it? Who even cares? Again, on Wikipedia, it is not my job, your job, or anyone else's job to prove how good or bad a creative work is. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)