So I have a bad shoulder, that’s not news. What is new is that my good shoulder is giving me trouble very similar to my bad shoulder back when it was still healing. (As it will never be completely right one could argue that the bad shoulder is still healing, but let’s ignore that for now.) Except this time I didn’t drop 160 pounds of manflesh onto it, so it’s got me stumped.

My clocks are hopefully set to the right time now, otherwise I’ll be an hour early to work tomorrow. (Which would make up for being an hour late last Monday.) While digging around for the microwave’s instruction manual, I found a slip of paper in the manual for my alarm clock which specifically tells me how to reset it to change the time on the correct date. Really wish I’d bothered to take care of that when I bought the fucking thing six months ago.

Webcomics vs Wikipedia is on again. FOIGHT OF THE CENTURAH! (Predictably, the Rob and Elliot site is down so I can’t link that, ensuring that nobody will get that reference.) Now, I think Taylor said it best:

“Wikipedia appears on my referrer list as having provided 401 out of 293,781 referrals for the month of September. In October (the month during which I stirred the pot again) it provided 395 referrals (as of this writing). Webalizer rounds this down to “0.00%” of my monthly traffic.”

But I have a few points to add:
1) Rym and Scott of Geeknights have said, and I agree, that most of the parties involved don’t get the point of notability: there has to be a verifiable source for any and every bit of information on Wikipedia, and that’s the way it’s always been.
2) However, that should not be grounds for deletion. It should be grounds for a big tag describing that entry as “lacking citations, information on this page could be wrong, cite this shit up if you can.” Only more formal, because god knows it’s impossible to be involved with wikipedia without having a damn redwood up your ass.
3) That’s not to say that anything should be added. Spam should be deleted. If the entirety of an article is “this exists,” delete it. More to the point, if the article doesn’t contain more than the first page of a Google search for that term, axe it.
4) Otherwise, deletion should be a last resort, and used sparingly. Deletion of information is and should be the antithesis of everything a wiki is about.

Lastly, comixpedia exists. This should be where you can find all the comics that don’t meet wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I think that every webcomics-related article should have a link to comixpedia at the bottom. Deleted comics should have a page with an explanation that it’s not wikipedia material (yet) and a link the the relevant comixpedia page. And most importantly, all you whiney fucks should be updating the goddamn webcomics wiki! I’m not saying I need to be able to find a fucking entry for every two-bit hack ever to hold a pencil, I’m saying that the articles there need to be expanded. I have not once looked up something in the webcomics wiki and found anything I didn’t already know. In most cases, the wikipedia article was more in-depth. So well fucking done on that count, people.

And while I’m bitching and moaning, why is it that when Mediawiki can’t find something, it suggests that you write the article yourself? If i knew enough about the subject to write an article, I probably wouldn’t be searching for it. Cocks.

Well, I should’ve gone to bed 45 minutes ago, so I’ll wrap this up. Now if there’s any justice in the world (and I got this blog set up properly) those links earlier won’t send a ping to the corresponding trackback uri. Not just good on principal, but good because nobody needs to see this train wreck of a rant.