On 2/27/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
wrote:
If the
history of webcomics has not yet been written, that would be a
good reason to write it on Wikipedia.
That seems directly contrary to the long-established "no original
research" policy. When it comes to history articles, Wikipedia is not
the place to publish novel historical narratives of any sort, whether
they be on the Cold War or on webcomics, but a place to document
*existing* historical narratives.
Isn't "novel" the key word here? There is nothing particularly novel
about compiling a list of brief, sourced, synopses of every work by a
major author, for example. Stating that increasingly frequent
references to the devil were caused by the author's impotence might
well be "novel".
A measure of "novelness" might be how likely another editor is to
dispute the accuracy of your compilation. It seems quite likely to me
that one can compile an undisputed history of webcomics. And should.
I don't think one could compile an undisputed history of webcomics, but
I do think a disputed one would be even more worthwhile. The problems
come in deciding which is the first webcomic, defining what a webcomic
is, and in deciding on which strips are of merit to include. But those
are disputes which will help build a better article, as long as all
inclusions are built on reliable sources.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/06