I think it is disappointing when there are so many interesting articles that one which is really self-promotion by one user is illustrated.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Many different Wikipedians have edited this article. Just because Steam edited, does not mean he was by any means the main contributor. Also, Greg welcomes any suggestions for future comics. -- Zanimum 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly a number of editors have contributed, the article is basically not referenced to a standard that is acceptable, ie there are no reliable sources cited. From a a search I did, any reliable sources such as the BBC are merely feeding off the organisation itself and putting it in the bizarre category with some humorous illustrations. The article has now been tagged as a hoax. The article's sole illustration was a photo shopped image which thereby lacked credibility.

I suggest that as a minimum standard in future articles, chosen should be of at least "good article" standard, if not featured article standard, ie they have been peer reviewed. I think the comics idea is brilliant and the comics themselves are brilliant. I think they give recognition to the diversity of articles on the wikipedia which is excellent. I feel strongly though that we should expose only articles which are credible, not those believed to be a hoax by at least some editors and readers.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments. Although I'm a little concerned that the pool of available topics would shrink, I'm also not interested in contributing to a possible hoax. How many of the comics that I've done so far are based on "good" or "featured" articles, I wonder?

For me, the great thing about Wikipedia - as a user AND as a cartoonist - is the amazingly broad range of topics, and especially the Quirkiness Factor. I'm not discounting the value of peer reviews, fact checking and serious scholarship in general. But that whole process does tend to drain away the fun. I suppose I could be drawing "BrittanicaWorld" instead; A.J. Jacobs wrote a really entertaining book based on reading the Brittanica ("The Know-It-All") - although the entertainment value came from his observations and personal asides, not from the factual tidbits themselves. Could I do a cartoon about "Mount Pinatubo"? Probably. Would I rather do a cartoon about "Glowsticking"? Absolutely. (Oops, it's not a featured article ...)

As a user, I know not to trust every word I read on Wikipedia. The same holds true for what I read in newspapers, what I hear on the radio, or what I see in the latest viral clip on TouTube. ("Really? There's a World Freehand Circle Drawing Championship? I wonder whether that's true ...") Vandalism and bad information exist, I know, but I also know that Wikipedia is a great first source for topics that wouldn't make the cut in a conventional encyclopedia.--Greg Williams 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you find all featured articles are on boring topics with boring content, upholding WP:V and WP:NOR by ensuring the articles have reliable sources would probably be a good start. Glowsticking currently lacks reliable sources but presumably the court case would definitely provide some.--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must note that "believed to be a hoax by at least some editors and readers" is rather odd, you're the only one to currently debate it's existence. -- Zanimum 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not the only person to debate its existence - review the talk page and you will find you

1. it has been the subject of an AfD (one nominator and one query that it was a indeed a sport but back in 2004 the very strong consensus was to keep based on google hits by and large and seen on television apparently and not least, "classy article"). (not sure how it would fare as an AfD this time round - I think there are different standards now)
2. In addition two anons have said "Huh?" or words to that effect,
3. Univited company has noted that it is merely based on one television series ... [1],
4. even Zanimum noted sometime (undated) "its a relative sprin on things" (precisely my problem - it is mere spin)
5. an anon queried the image, I have also queried the image and I am more cynical than to think photoshop was merely used to alter the contrast of the sky or to crop.
6. Mgm has asked for more sources
7. Piotrus tagged the article [2]

--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]