WikiProject Comics / Webcomics	(Rated C-Class, Top-importance)	ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:ComicsprojComics articles
Comics portal v • d • e This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups:   Webcomics work group

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Webcomic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Archives
Archive 1 Apr 2005 - Nov 2008

Contents 1 Non-english webcomics 2 Censorship 3 adding an external link 4 Authority for "first online comic"

[edit] Non-english webcomics

I saw the {{geographical imbalance}} tag "This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on the region in question." I see no discussion here on the Talk page, but I do agree that the article is almost entirely about online comics in the Anglo-saxon language sphere and neglects European (non-English) and Asian work.

Therefore I started the section Non-english webcomics with an example of one German comic.

I know nothing about the history of online comics outside of what I read in the French and German articles and faint memories of Compuserve comic forums (possibly German around 1995). Nevertheless I added inside html comments the following very rough skeleton that could be expanded to cover the French.

I would be interested if anyone could expand this section for several other languages and cultures, for example where are Japanese and Korean webcomics mentioned (apart from eigoMANGA)? 84user (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding content about non-English webcomics seems a worthy goal, but the current state of this section is not ideal. A list of non-English webcomics isn't the way to go - we don't have a list of English language webcomics in the main article, and how would one decide which comics to include and which to exclude? If someone can find a good source for analysis of such comics, that would be great. Right now, though, we've got a grab-bag of comics - hardly encyclopedic. Fasrad (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Well I added this:

France:

"In France Comic Blogs are thriving. There are now festivals dedicated to webcomics like the Festiblog. Even at the famous Comic Festival of Angoulême, comic bloggers are present and award the price of the best webcomic. France is a country with a strong tradition in comics but there seems to be a place left for bloggers who represent the new generation of comic authors. A good example is Boulet, who started with a blog and who's publishing his second album of webcomics now: Bouletcorp. Here's a list of established and less established French webcomics: Frédéric Boilet, Guy Delisle, Lucille Gomez, Nicoz, Clément Oubrerie, Paka, Pluche, Lewis Trondheim, Wayne, Blog de la Mirabelle, Le repaire de Lommsek... This is only a short selection and some of these blogs have an audience of 30,000 readers/day, others of 200 readers/day, but their diversity reflect the broad range of webcomics in a French comic environment in constant evolution. Some of these webcomics are mixed genres. Using the freedom of a blog some authors mix comics, photography, videos, texts, but essentially these blogs are webcomics."

But it was censored because the links (in bold) are considered spam!!! Unbelievable. I'm done here. I don't feel like working for nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamirabelle (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] adding an external link

Would it be relevant enough and not considered spamming to add an external link for a webcomic artists's discussion forum? There is resourceful information about creating and making a business of webcomics at this website. I've read the external links rules and I can't seem to figure out whether this would be considered spam since it is of assistance and provides information. Thanks for your help! Wendyannee (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Authority for "first online comic"

T.H.E. Fox has the assertion of being the "first known online comic" based on a statement by T Campbell of Penny and Aggie. Is this person's statement something we can consider a reliable source? GreenReaper (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, by the looks of things all that means is that it's the earliest he personally knows, and it's probably the earliest he knows because he looked it up on Wikipedia and it's the earliest given in this article. Blackbirdz (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Do you think there is anyone who can make such a statement, then? I mean, he wrote A History Of Webcomics, so I'm not sure who else to look to (I've emailed him asking for clarification on where he got the information). Note that the article was just created, although it's true that a previous version existed. GreenReaper (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure, and the source says as much. Blackbirdz (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. We can't say for sure that it is the earliest online comic. But I dropped him an email, and he pointed out this quite reasonable point:

 At this writing, I can't find anything earlier than, or contemporary with, *T.H.E. Fox*.  I think it would be extremely unreliable to claim *T.H.E. Fox* as "the earliest online comic," but unless someone steps forward to offer up an earlier example, it makes sense to call it "the earliest known."  When I wrote and published *A History of Webcomics*, I didn't know about *T.H.E. Fox.* My earliest "online comic" citation then (not counting some forerunners that weren't really comics) was *Where The Buffalo Roam* from six years later. After my publication, a reader turned me on to some of the creator's interviews and I realized there was enough to verify his 1986 claim. 

We are not experts, and so are not in a position to make such a claim. That's his job, and fortunately he did it, the claim was published, and he confirmed it in that email. Another site made the same claim. Until someone comes along to make a different claim - or he gets back with something different; he said he'd take another look - it's the earliest known by reliable sources. GreenReaper (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, just got done writing only to get an edit conflict. Well, here it is anyway...

We could bicker all day about the possibility that an earlier comic may turn up, but that argument could apply to any claim of being the first at anything. This is why I said that it is the first known, instead of flatly saying that it is the first. Considering that T.H.E. Fox has been deleted for more then 2 years, I seriously doubt that T Campbell is basing his claims on Wikipedia. "this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure" Then how do we know anything is the first for sure? This seems rhetorical. T Campbell is the author of A History of Webcomics as GreenReaper pointed out and noted for being a webcomic historian (hence the title of his book), someone who can credibly make the claim that it is the first known and as such does not make the claim that none may exist before it. If not, then who, or what kind of evidence is needed to make such a claim? Guinness? RP9 (talk) 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the argument could not apply to "being the first at anything." Things that are important firsts are recorded when they happen and are indisputable. This is simply someone saying it's the first they know of, and that's not the same as being the first anyone knows of, and that type of thing shouldn't be put in encyclopedia articles. It's enough to say, as THIS ARTICLE does, "Among the earliest online comics were T.H.E. Fox." THIS ARTICLE. Not the deleted one somebody has recreated. And fwiw, this T Campbell? "T. Campbell. ... is most certainly NOT a 'World-reknown webcomics historian.' He knows it, you know it and Antarctic Press knows it. To print that is a false statement. If T. Campbell is a 'world-reknown webcomics historian' then I'm a 'world-reknown fitness expert.' They knew they were lying. They printed it anyway." So says Scott Kurtz. [1] Blackbirdz (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But you never answered my question. "If not, then who, or what kind of evidence is needed to make such a claim?" The way "things that are important" are recorded can always be disputed. This is why the argument can apply to anything. What Scott Kurtz was saying was mostly criticism of T. Campbell book (which does not mention T.H.E. Fox) and that he should not claim to be world-renown, because he is not and I do not think anyone here said he was. But this is not just "someone" and denying his credibility with something Scott Kurtz said would seem to be just as as much of an unreliable claim to you then the claims T. Campbell is making. In fact, this is not even what I said. I said he was "noted for being a webcomic historian" not that he was a "World-[renown] webcomics historian". RP9 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I already answered your question: "this isn't the type of thing anyone can know for sure." Nobody knows everything that happened on Compuserve or The Source or the like back in the'70s, and so we shouldn't use a single unreliable source that is likely getting his information off Wikipedia as a source for such an unreliable claim. Clearly, if someone traded a comic on the net in the late '70s, then someone knows it, even if we don't, so it is improper to call this "the first known" with just a single, disputed, unreliable source. The best we can say is what this article has said for 4 years -- that this is an early online comic. Blackbirdz (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So, your saying that there is no way to know for sure, no matter what source is used? Claims to being the first known are made a lot. Are you saying that none of such claims can ever be proven? If say The Guinness Book of World Records were to publish that this is the first known online comic or even that it is the first online comic, would you say that is unreliable? When I said first known, in an encyclopedic sense, this would mean the first known by experts in that particular field or that history would tell. This would seem to be the way it is used elsewhere. Also what makes you think T. Campbell got his information off Wikipedia? The source was published while the article was deleted since January of 2007. And even when it was not deleted its claim to being the first did not last long, as it was not properly sourced. I an not sure where your going with this other then to discredit T. Campbell reputability instead of explaining why this particular claim may be unreliable, say for instance someone mentioning that his claim about T.H.E. Fox is not representative of other webcomic historians or simply incorrect about it in some non-speculative way. After looking over it again, I don't think T. Campbell's claims mean nothing, but I am not sure whether it is enough to make such a claim. I would like to know what you think is. RP9 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This information has not been deleted since January of 2007. As I said earlier, which you can read below, this article, the webcomic article, the article whose talk page we are having this conversation on, has apparently said "Some of the earliest online comics include T.H.E. Fox [from] 1986" consistently since 16 November 2005.[2] That is, Wikipedia had this information 3 years before your source, which suggests to me that your source probably got it off Wikipedia. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my misunderstanding, I thought you meant he based it directly on a claim on Wikipedia. But then, what makes you think he did base it solely on this information on Wikipedia? RP9 (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect your source got the information about this comic off Wikipedia because Wikipedia had the information for several years before your source did, and I find it more plausible that he looked it up on Wikipedia than that he, independent of Wikipedia, just stumbled upon the information all by himself one day while he just happened to be in The Commodore 64/128 RoundTable on GEnie. Blackbirdz (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I knew about T.H.E. Fox without gleaning it from Wikipedia. In fact, I never knew it was mentioned on this article until you pointed it out. Are you suggesting that T. Campbell's knowledge of webcomics and the like are solely or primarily based on Wikipedia? Despite whether he found it here first or not, are you saying that he put no other research into it? And if so, what evidence do you have that this is the case except that it happened to be on here before the source was published? RP9 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't read Wikipedia, he should, because it has information three years before he does. And you say you haven't read this article; I have no idea why you've been engaging in a conversation about it then, and I have no idea why I'm wasting my time talking to someone about an article they haven't even read. Blackbirdz (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Were discussing the authenticity of a source on the T.H.E. Fox article and it is certainly not mandatory that I read the entirety of any associated parent Wikipedia article that I happen to be talking about as if Wikipedia was the only source for such information. You are saying that T. Campbell should get his information from Wikipedia but you are saying that if he does he is not a reliable source, where are you going with this? The fact that it was on Wikipedia beforehand is irrelevant because the whole idea is that this information was researched, not just pulled off Wikipedia. I would be more concerned if this source popped up immediately after it appeared on Wikipedia because that may indicate that it was not researched. To be honest, I do not see any founding that he is an unreliable source, you are not answering any of the valuable questions that I have asked and on the contrary, I feel that you are wasting my time. RP9 (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, honestly, I thought you might consider reading this article before commenting. I'm not sure why you are so confused. What I am saying is that, as evidenced by the information posted here from Scott Kurtz and Jon Rosenberg, YOUR SOURCE IS UNRELIABLE. He is less reliable then Wikipedia, as Wikipedia has key information for several years before he has it. Yes, therefore, if he were to read Wikipedia more often, he would become a much more reliable source than he is now; however, he would still not be a reliable enough source to use him for information in Wikipedia about all that is "known," and especially not this type of debatable information. Blackbirdz (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was never confused about what Scott Kurtz and Jon Rosenberg said. I was only confused about why you think T. Campbell based this on Wikipedia, which seems completely unfounded beyond speculation. I think regardless of T. Campbell's reliability, revising my opinion, that in order to say it is the first known (remember, in the among experts sense) there should be at least two different sources that say that it is the first known. Finding sources for T.H.E. Fox is not easy, because Google makes no differentiation between "T.H.E. Fox" and "the fox" and I had hoped T. Campbell's word would be enough. We are running out of screen here, so I hope you feel that this would be enough. RP9 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And as far as whether he's getting his information of Wikipedia, if he isn't he should be! Looking through this article's history, Dragonfiend added "Some of the earliest online comics include T.H.E. Fox [from] 1986" on 16 November 2005.[3] According to Amazon, Campbell's book (where he thought the first online comic was from 1992!) came out on June 14, 2006. I think it's hilarious that this 'World-reknown webcomics historian' is at least 8 months behind Wikipedia in his knowledge of Webcomics! Blackbirdz (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Eight months really isn't long enough, unless you live on Wikipedia and print your books via Hulu. Campbell started writing what would become a book in 2003, as a series of articles for Comixtalk. He went to the effort of asking for feedback when updating them - although in this case all he got (in May 2005, half a year before that edit) was a complaint that anyone was writing a history in the first place. Was his research perfect? Obviously not, and he knew it, given the version number at the top of the book. But he corrected himself with the Newsarama article. If Wikipedia accepts his work as valid - and apparently it's willing to - I think it's reasonable to accept a later version.

Not every first of significance - or even of interest - is hailed with a choir of angels. For every "first web page", there are plenty of "first [X in an area that never became significant]". However, if it wasn't of interest now, nobody would be writing books or articles about it. As for "among the first" . . . if we were talking six months, I could kinda see your point. But this is over five years before any other proposed online comic. It's not "among the earliest". It's far and away the earliest that we currently know of from any verifiable source, and we should make this clear. Implying anything else misrepresents the facts. GreenReaper (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we absolutely should not write this based on a single extremely unreliable source. Blackbirdz (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this way too amusing and ironic not to point out. Read the last part of Scott Kurtz's post here. (I can't copy it all here) He says "I think I would just let everyone tell their own story, even if they overlap and contradict each other. The contradictions would at least be compelling." and then goes on to say "Maybe it's something that should be more open-source and wiki-like than something that reads like a term paper." Sense the relevancy of all this? :) RP9 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's another view on the reliability of this source. Jon Rosenberg writes: "some fairly major chronological errors ... absolutely retarded ... my faith in his research abilities is pretty slim ... he is not concerned about accuracy ... He is not concerned when he steals ideas from people and posts them without credit." [4] Blackbirdz (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)