Websnark

Comment from: kirabug posted at September 3, 2005 3:00 PM

Nifty! Thanks for bringing this up, Eric!

Comment from: Jeff Smith posted at September 3, 2005 3:24 PM

Excellent. I'm glad to see this is going to happen.

Comment from: Tangent posted at September 3, 2005 3:27 PM

Now if only we could start a Web Cartoonist Assistance Fund (scroll down to the second article)... *sigh*

Robert A. Howard, Tangents Webcomic Reviews
http://www.tangents.us

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 3, 2005 3:48 PM

Such a fund would be a great idea if there was really such a thing as a cohesive webcomics community, rather than several sets of overlapping fannish and creative circles.

It would also be well nigh impossible to perform triage for it.

Comment from: Aerin posted at September 3, 2005 5:11 PM

Yay! So Eric, are you planning on participating in this little endeavor as well?

Comment from: Plaid Phantom posted at September 3, 2005 6:01 PM

Awesome. *looks into getting involved*

Comment from: thelemurgod posted at September 3, 2005 7:57 PM

Yee-HAH!

I'd gladly contribute times and energies towards the myriad administrative details. I'll keep an eye open for details of development and ways to contribute.

Schmank you much!

Comment from: John Lynch posted at September 3, 2005 9:46 PM

I was hoping something like this would come about after your last entry. Great to see it is :) It would be great if support from webcomics currently with their own wiki's could be garnered as well. These include SScpedia although it isn't licensed under a CC license or GNU Free Documentation one, so support would be needed.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at September 3, 2005 9:51 PM

John -- at the very least, a stublike entry for the given strip's wiki (SScpedia, Achewoodwiki and others) could include an external link pointer to the in depth one. There's no reason we can't open up the pathways to more in depth information.

Comment from: thok posted at September 4, 2005 12:13 AM

I figure that a link to the Very F*cking Big List of Sprite Comics, which is an attempt to list every sprite comic of the net, would be useful.

(Unfortunately, this says nothing about popularity, quality, total number of updates, current update status, or even if the comic in question continues to be a sprite comic. But it's got 2584 sprite comics right now, and it should give you a feel for the potential scale of this project.)

Comment from: thok posted at September 4, 2005 12:14 AM

Stupid code doesn't like my link. Here's the website address

http://stc.aftervision.com/VFBLOSC.txt

Comment from: Alexis Christoforides posted at September 4, 2005 2:00 AM

Aerin's comment on the previous blog entry sold me on the project: Centralization is good for newcomers looking for a gateway to the world of webcomics.

I'll be more than happy to help in whatever way I can. This is going to be awesome!

Comment from: STrRedwolf posted at September 4, 2005 2:07 AM

We're also doing it at Comic Genesis. http://cgwiki.comicgenesis.com

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at September 4, 2005 2:51 AM

Kelly -- that's extremely cool. Though of course it's focused on Comic Genesis comics.

That being said, with you guys operating under a CC license that includes derivative works, so long as we attribute and explain the license terms, we could replicate what you do. And, as stuff gets developed in the new 'unaffiliated' wiki, you could do the same so long as you explained our license terms.

Everyone, she is a winner!

Comment from: sylvan posted at September 4, 2005 9:42 AM

I like the idea, but does it necessarily need to be WEBcomics specific? It might might be good to include print comics as well. This would not only make it more inclusive (and is there really any need to ghettoize webcomics?), it would prevent all the controversy over which comics are "real" webcomics and which are print comics with some web presence.

Comment from: Merus posted at September 4, 2005 10:42 AM

I'd just go with the criteria that in case of doubt, assume it's a webcomic and let it have a writeup. I think that having a couple of issues of Spiderman Marvel put up on the web as an experiment included as a webcomic is a lesser crime than leaving Girl Genius out because it's a print comic that has an online presence, for instance. And that's a bit of a facetious example because Girl Genius is, as Kaja Foglio repeatedly reminds us, a webcomic and damned proud to be one.

And the inevitable question, "So if I'm a print comic creator, and I just scan some already printed pages in and call it a webcomic, that counts?" would then have the answer, "yes".

Comment from: trpeal posted at September 4, 2005 12:18 PM

I love this idea, and I absolutely support the idea of it being as inclusive as possible. Two strips in the archive? You're in, if someone is willing to write the article in the appropriate style and tone. A generously illustrated story? Sure. Flash 'toons? If they want to be included, let them. The online presence of a generally print comic? You bet.

Leave it to Wikipedia to debate about which webcomics are "influential." Obviously, that will be a heated one, and make many people upset, no matter how it is decided. This project should not seek to exclude anyone. Furthermore, it should hope to serve as an entry point for webcomic newbies, people wondering if there are any comics posted on the Internet, and anyone else wanting to find out information about an online comic. (So, it should have a dull name that clearly explains what it is and what it does. At least as a subtitle.)

Comment from: HydrogenGuy posted at September 4, 2005 1:50 PM

I love the idea, as long as whoever actually designed the Comixpedia site is kept away from it with a ten-foot pole, alligators, and a moat of fire.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 4, 2005 2:01 PM

You know that wikis are skinnable, right, HydrogenGuy?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at September 4, 2005 2:24 PM

My vote goes to "Wikicomics" with subtitle "The Webcomics Encyclopedia" (Or the Encyclopedia of Webcomics, whichever seems to flow better). I know my argument for plain wikicomics is weak, but here it is; wiki-anything connotes the internet and so, to me, wikicomics can immediately make me think of webcomics, despite being a print comic book fan who might be expected to protest that.
Of course, it is a bit vague and could lead to scope-confusion, but it just sounds so much better than many of the proposed alternatives...

Comment from: roninkakuhito posted at September 4, 2005 2:39 PM

Oi, I do wish that wikipedia didn't have that "is it influential" requirement. I love the beast, but i wish it was a little more inclusive of everything.

Comment from: Chris Anthony posted at September 4, 2005 4:16 PM

siwangmu, I can see "ComicsWiki" (especially since it retains the CamelCaps style), but "Wikicomics" fails the modifier-sequence "guideline" to which portmanteaus are generally held: "Wikicomics" implies "comics made on/by a wiki", rather than "a wiki about comics".

At least, it does to me.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at September 4, 2005 4:47 PM

I've said it elsewhere, but I'm totally thinking "Codexpedia" for no good reason.

(I have a general distaste for site names which reference the underlying software, though. What if, someday, the wiki moved to something which served a similar function, but wasn't a wiki? You're as stuck as someone who calls their site "Comixnuke" and shifts to a non-PHPNuke CMS, or gives up and goes to a flat file archive, a few years down the road. Besides, and I realize this is totally a taste thing, "wiki" is one of the ugliest words I've seen in recent years. Kinda like "blog," really.)

Comment from: NthDegree256 posted at September 4, 2005 4:50 PM

This may have been mentioned under the previous post; I'm not sure.



It seems to me that one major benefit of having an in-depth, exhaustive online webcomic resource like this would be to assist the webcomic creators themselves. Say Howard Taylor wants to make a joke involving one of his characters' family, but can't recall off-hand if he's said anything about them yet, and can't find his own notes on the character. A quick jaunt to the Schlock Mercenary section of the wiki, and he can look up that character's bio and find out any pertinent information that's been made public. I hear J.K. Rowling makes frequent use of a couple Harry Potter fansites to keep her own continuity straight while writing the books - this could be along much the same lines.

Comment from: HydrogenGuy posted at September 4, 2005 5:40 PM

Wednesday: I did not know that, but it comforts me a great deal!

Comment from: Chris Anthony posted at September 4, 2005 5:53 PM

Don't get me wrong, Wednesday, I agree with you! I'm just saying, if "wiki" has to be involved in the name, I find "ComicsWiki" superior to "Wikicomics", for the aforementioned reasons.

Comment from: roninkakuhito posted at September 4, 2005 6:03 PM

NthDegree256: Your example is rather amusing since Howard Taylor uses Wiki software to maintain an encyclopedia schlockia for his own use for just that purpose. (Sadly he won't host it online since it contains all sorts of spoiler material.)

Comment from: NthDegree256 posted at September 4, 2005 6:39 PM

roninkakuhito: Heh. Sneaky. Well, my point still stands :-P. For those authors/artists who are having trouble keeping track of their own notes, and of what they've already made public or not, a fan-maintained database could be a lifesaver.

Comment from: Aerin posted at September 4, 2005 7:31 PM

Someone on Comixpedia suggested The Webcomics Compendium, which I like a lot. It needs to have "webcomic" or "webcomics" in the name to be most effective as a resource for outsiders.

Comment from: thelemurgod posted at September 4, 2005 8:46 PM

Someone on Comixpedia suggested The Webcomics Compendium

WHOO! Yeah, I think something fairly straight forward is the best way to go. Clever, kooky names can have marketing appeal, but we are not out to sell a project.

So, things like The Webcomics Compendium, or The Webcomic Encyclopedia are the likely choices.

Howard Taylor uses Wiki software to maintain an encyclopedia schlockia for his own use for just that purpose.

I must add that this is definately the way to go for any comic creator with involved plots or tons of characters and terminology. I write five or six comic strips and am working on a few more in-depth projects. My personal wiki is a god-send to keep all that information straight.

Wiki is wonderful!

I would recommend it as an organizational tool for all comic creators.

Comment from: Zaq posted at September 5, 2005 3:58 AM

Pardon my ignorance, but what advantage does a personal wiki have over, say, just a text file or word processing document? Isn't the whole point of wiki the universal modification thing? Or is that just a common feature but not necessarily the defining one?

Comment from: Aerin posted at September 5, 2005 5:13 AM

If you've got something with complex organization, a wiki can be extremely useful. By using a wiki, you can cross-reference, include other pages, and link back and forth all over the damn place. A branching document like a wiki is much more flexible than a plain old text file.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 5, 2005 12:00 PM

I wrote

but if there were a webcomic wiki I'd be more'n willing to paste appropriate portions of my FAQ into it and see what happens.

Say, since my FAQ is technically copyright to me instead of falling under a general use policy, would that be kosher? Maybe it would be better to cut-and-paste the existing Wikipedia article, misapprehensions and all.

Aerin wrote

A branching document like a wiki is much more flexible than a plain old text file.

What advantage would a local wiki have over a set of HTML files on the hard drive? Does the software know what other files already exist when you're creating a new one, and create the hyperlinks for you?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at September 5, 2005 12:18 PM

Paul -- the advantage is in ease of creation and linking. Using MediaWiki, you create a link to an Arthur, King of Time and Space article by simply putting brackets around the name, like this: [[Arthur: King of Time and Space.]] Then, if the article hasn't been created yet, the link goes to an editing window that lets you create it by just typing.

It's vastly faster than making up multiple HTML pages, created an organically branching multiple subpage document almost at typing speed, in other words. And for a writer who's building backstory or documentation, it lets you put in links as you get ideas, and then develop those ideas on subpages at the rate you brainstorm them.

Multiple HTML pages, on the other hand, only work well if you already have the content mapped out, at least in your head. Even if they're on the local hard drive, they're more designed for presentation of existing data than the growth of new data.

Comment from: gwalla posted at September 5, 2005 8:27 PM

What if, someday, the wiki moved to something which served a similar function, but wasn't a wiki?

Technically, if it serves a similar enough function, it's a wiki. "Wiki", like "shopping cart", is a type of server software, not a particular program. The MediaWiki software maintained by Wikimedia (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, et al) is just one of several, and not the firstÛit's actually quite different from "traditional" wikis itself, e.g. the use of brackets instead of CamelCase to mark internal links.

Comment from: gwalla posted at September 5, 2005 8:34 PM

Paul: if you were the one submitting parts of your FAQ, then you would be releasing those parts under the relevant public license.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at September 5, 2005 10:03 PM

Paul: if you were the one submitting parts of your FAQ, then you would be releasing those parts under the relevant public license.

I don't know whether you're a lawyer, but I'll take your word for it. And, y'know, it's not like I'm gonna sue myself over it.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: