Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum
Topic: Wikipedia entry on JB (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12059
Posted: 07 June 2005 at 8:39pm | IP Logged | 1  

Guys, anybody want to join me in the editing of the John Byrne entry in Wikipedia. As it is now, the article is essentially a collection of fan misconceptions about events behind Byrne's work. I've tried to get these tossed out arguing that it obscures any discussion about what's really important - JB's comics - but the Wikipedia admins wouldn't have that. I need help getting the article accurate and neutral , overcoming the prejudices of the current author.

The rough draft article can be found here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byrne/Temp

The discussion page is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Byrne/Temp
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Todd Hembrough
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 4173
Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:45pm | IP Logged | 2  

This is similar to something we deal with in science. 

Since each of us has an area where were are really experts, you can judge the quality of a journal or even a magazine like Scientific American, based on how they handle a topic with which you are completely familiar.  If the Journal butchers something you know very very well, then you can pretty much write off teh bulk of the other stuff in the journal.

I am afraid that the same could be true for Wiki-pedia based solely on the hatchet job they do on JB.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Wayne Osborne
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Manhunter

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3817
Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:49pm | IP Logged | 3  

This is the first time I've looked at Wikipedia - and it just might be
the last. How is an encyclopedia that is based on a consenus of
opinion valid? Is that how it works? Somebody writes what they
think about a topic as "fact", someone edits it with their version of
the "facts" and this process continues until a truce is reached or
everyone just gets too damn tired to write anymore? What the hell is
that about? Verifiable facts are just optional? That's just stupid.

I would like to help but I couldn't really make heads or tails of the
talk page. And Joe, you really don't help your cause much by using
an alias. An encyclopedia composed by people using fake
identities....what a comforting thought. The internet has reached its
nirvana.

WO
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10935
Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:49pm | IP Logged | 4  

In fact, the more I look at that page, the madder I get. 

Anyone with half a brain understands that the crap being passed off on the internet is the insane ramblings of the socially retarded, but considering that the title of the page has "-pedia" in it lends to the idea that it's somehow, in some distant way, related to an encyclopedia, and thus, correct, and to have lies and potentially career harming slander like that in there should constitute, at the least, a cease-and-desist, if not JAIL TIME for the scumbags who refuse to remove it.

I know we have some lawyer on the board - what can we do to get this site shut down RIGHT NOW?

I'm furious.  I'm so sick of this god-damned crap.  What the hell is the matter with these fricking scumbags that they can  waste their whole lives slandering a guy who makes juvinile fiction???

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Kirk
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 588
Posted: 07 June 2005 at 10:08pm | IP Logged | 5  

Don't be so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater guys. Wikipedia is huge overlapping community of thousands of smaller interest groups, so are we really surprised that the comicbook group is behaving as we'd expect any other online group of comicbook fans. It doesn't mean that the rest of the project is anywhere near as insular or negative. And quite frankly the discussion section is often one of its strengths - you can often find more insight from what people object to in an article than you can from the raw facts themselves.

So don't boycott the project just because of the JB page either just boycott the JB page or join Joe and make it work!
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Ken Colon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 12:58am | IP Logged | 6  

Wow. I read the article and came away thinking JB spends a lot of time  frustrated.  The language is so obviously negative. I can picture the person rubbing their hands together saying "I'll get you Mr.Byrne!!"  while sitting in their parents basement.

It seems sad that the Admins of that site would even accept such an obvious attack.  

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4091
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 1:18am | IP Logged | 7  

I quickly read over the article, and it just doesn't strike me as the vicious attack some of you are viewing it as.  I don't get the impression the writer is out to "get" JB, or has a black and white "Byrne is evil" attitude.  It does seem like he is overly invested in the idea that JB is "controversial" and tries too hard to portray that side of things, but it does not read like an out and out hatchet job to me. 

The main problem I see with it is too many instances of using phrases like "some fans felt that..." or "there was fan criticism of..." etc. Comments about the supposed opinions of anonymous "some fans" are worthless, as you could find "some fans" to bolster any opinion out there.  That kind of stuff is really just veiled editorializing and doesn't belong there.

But Mike (or anyone else) what do you see in that article that is a lie or slanderous? (well, actually it would be libelous in this case).  Are there gross inaccuracies in there I am missing?

  

Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 08 June 2005 at 1:19am
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Robot Wrangler

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 4:16am | IP Logged | 8  

Anyone can "edit" a Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5768
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 4:29am | IP Logged | 9  

[QUOTE=John Byrne]Anyone can "edit" a Wikipedia entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer[/Q UOTE]

 

Yeah I notcied that also! I'm assuming this "Edit" isn't a "live" edit but soley for the individual when they visit?

 

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12059
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 7:26am | IP Logged | 10  

 Jason Czeskleba wrote:
I quickly read over the article, and it just doesn't strike me as the vicious attack some of you are viewing it as.   


I don't think so either.

 Jason Czeskleba wrote:
  I don't get the impression the writer is out to "get" JB, or has a black and white "Byrne is evil" attitude.  It does seem like he is overly invested in the idea that JB is "controversial" and tries too hard to portray that side of things, but it does not read like an out and out hatchet job to me. 


Yes, but that can be even more harmful than a hatchet job. It's editorialization presented as objective truth. Byrne left this and Byrne quit that - it paints a picture of a prima donna who is notable for everything else but his work.


Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Guest79877180
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2387
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 7:36am | IP Logged | 11  

 Mike O'Brien wrote:
...insane ramblings of the socially retarded...

Man, I love when you get riled up.  Another great Mike O'Brien quote.

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Guest79877180
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2387
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 7:37am | IP Logged | 12  

 Ken Colon wrote:
...while sitting in their parents basement.

At the age of 45...

Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Antony Bedford
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 94
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 7:47am | IP Logged | 13  


To be fair, Wikepedia is at it's best when you want to know a quick, simple indesputable fact. Eg. What year was George Bush born. As soon as you move into the sphere of opinion, it is useless and always will be.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ted Downum
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2055
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 7:52am | IP Logged | 14  

 Antony Bedford wrote:

To be fair, Wikepedia is at it's best when you want to know a quick, simple indesputable fact. Eg. What year was George Bush born. As soon as you move into the sphere of opinion, it is useless and always will be.

True.  I find Wikipedia a useful starting point for research, but its content has to be taken with many grains of salt.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5556
Posted: 08 June 2005 at 7:53am | IP Logged | 15  

Antony- my guess is that one man's fact will often become another man's opinion in such a venue as Wikipedia... ;)
Back to Top profile | search
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login