Talk:Xkcd

From Conservapedia

I'm not sure how the copyright part is relevant (and I don't think CP should be used as a source), but I left it in. Also, does anybody remember the template which puts a notice that the page is intionally spelled with a lower case title? I can't remember it anymore. HelpJazz 22:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I just read over one hundred of the comics (I had a lot of catching up to do since the last time I read) and here are my conclusions:

• There is no liberal message. It doesn't preach conservatism, but that in no way makes it liberal. Many of the strips are about math, physics, computer programming, and generally geeking kinds of things. In this comment, the character laments getting into political debates.
• He doesn't "support WP" and that particular comic is not obscene. In fact, the title of the comic is "Getting out of Hand." Of the comics #250 through #371 (the current one) the only other comic I found related to WP was this one, which is not support so much as a statement. (Additionally, if not for the title this comic could apply to many wiki projects, including Conservapedia).
• I still don't get the relevance of the "copyleft" part.

HelpJazz 23:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Encyclopaedic?

Is this juvenile nonsense really suitable for a reputable encyclopaedia? There is so much of cultural worth yet to be added to this project! Bugler 16:45, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree that this article could use some improvements, and I also agree that we lack articles on more important subjects, but that doesn't influence notability or encyclopedic nature. The comic is highly influential among bloggers and geeks, so I don't see why we shouldn't have an article about it. --KevinM 16:56, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Surely Conservative Values should aim higher than comics. Does Websters or the OED include txt spk? Bugler 17:03, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not saying we should give this article Featured Article status or that it's more important than some other article. But "lack of conservative values" is no deletion criterion, I think. An encyclopedia that has articles about people who won the American Idol contests can surely host an article about a highly influential comic without much worries. If you feel that there is a lack of Conservative Articles, then create them. Deleting this one won't add conservative values. --KevinM 17:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Frankly, you've got something there. Maybe new articles should as a matter of course display Conservative Values - that is, not be 'posters' for Liberal values, but decent, family-friendly, educational, informative. Most here are, but some Liberal culture 'stuff' has crept under the radar. Editors could seek approval from sysops if they are unsure which side of the boundary their proposal lies. Bugler 17:30, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this is an encyclopedia, so we should create articles without checking back with some sort of political thought police (to put it in very harsh terms). I understand that CP doesn't want to advertise "liberal values", and you're encouraged to make sure of this, but we shouldn't limit ourselves to one end of the political spectrum when creating articles. Most topics are free of politics and thus don't show any political values, so what about those? Always keep in mind that, if people don't find an article here, they will go to Wikipedia. So I think it's better to create all sorts of article, regardless of whether or not we agree with the subject.

Oh, would you call American Idol winners "some Liberal culture 'stuff'" that "has crept under the radar"? If not, what would you say counts as such? Just double-checking because that remark was sorta free-floating in your reply, and I want to avoid misunderstandings. --KevinM 17:42, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to impose any sort of censorship. I don't see 'Conservative-friendly' articles as just those following an overtly Conservative and political mode of thought. However, I would exclude material with an up-front Liberal/Leftist ideology, as well as decadent material redolent of Hollywood Values; and so yes, American idol W-list 'celebrities' certainly would be excluded, unless they were able to contribute something to the Conservapedia message. Bugler 17:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I see where you're coming from, and I agree to a certain degree. There are articles that (following my stomach feeling) don't exactly promote conservatism (to put it lightly), but I'm the sort of guy who will rather add things that do instead of deleting things that don't. Having an article on something doesn't hurt (in my eyes), even if it doesn't contribute to The Message. That doesn't mean that I advocate adding more of them, just that I'm against deleting material added by our contributors on the basis that it doesn't meet some arbitrary Message Level. :P

And while I fully agree that some American Idol winner isn't overly notable, we might want to be careful when speaking out against them. Let me just suggest that you should check the edit histories of Jordin Sparks, Ruben Studdard or Taylor Hicks... (And before you ask: I was quite surprised myself! I just checked it to see who would add such one-liners about Idols...) --KevinM 18:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Note

HenryS added the AFD template to the article. Since we have a discussion here already, I removed it again. Henry, why don't you simply join us here? --KevinM 18:18, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Changes made

I took out this part of the article:

“

The comic at least once supports evolutionism, stating that young earth creationist theories, along with 9/11 conspiracy theories and moon hoax allegations, "represent a known glitch in human reasoning." [1]

”

It's important to distinguish what the comic supports and what some character in the comic supports. If we confuse the two, we would have to say that, for example DC Comics (and I guess Marvel, too) supports the annihilation of all of mankind just because some character has this view. --KevinM 17:08, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Ah but - how significant is the character? It seems pretty crucial. Bugler 17:12, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

It's an unnamed character of a single strip. How significant do you think he is? But if you want to claim that he is important enough to represent the comic, then I will simply claim that the comic praises the effectiveness of prayer and acknowledges the existence of God. Now what? Is xkcd a conservative comic? It also criticizes or at least pokes fun at Wikipedia, does that mean it sides with Conservapedia in pointing out that WP is full of silly trivia and bias? ;)

I have read the entire xkcd archive. The moment we assume that some character's actions or opinions represent the comic, I'm pretty sure could spin this thing in pretty much every way possible. However, I'm interested in a factual article, and the fact is that there is no sign that this comic represents the author's view. --KevinM 17:35, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Kevuin, I'm not pretending to be a comic expert. Just making sure it wasn't a Captain Conservapedia that was saying the bad stuff! Bugler 17:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Not quite sure I follow you there (Captain Conservapedia? Bad stuff? If you mean that whoever added it or the article isn't exactly the CP Editor posterboy, that's possibly true. I didn't check, nor do I really care about such details)... but here's the thing: The characters in the comic represent a wide range of people. They're drawn as stick people because they are supposed to be types of people. No details, no identifying features, just the bare minimum.

For example here is somebody who could be you, me, or anybody else who ever debated on the Internet.

And while it's certainly possible that some traits overlap with the views of the author, we shouldn't take this as granted. That's why I took out the passage, nothing more.

It maybe helps to point out that most of the strips are one-shots. You can assume that all those same-looking stick people are the same, but it's really not a given. In fact, practically nobody in the strip is even given a name (the few names mentioned are either real names of other notable persons or completely generic ones, if I remember correctly). There is no global plot, and we're not really given any fixed character to identify with. --KevinM 18:01, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

AAh, I couldn't get that het up about someone being a wrong on the internet. but tghis is a Conservative site. Bugler 18:09, 9 July 2008 (EDT)