User talk:Timothy Perper

.

User Talk:Peregrine Fisher

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page. If you're looking for pages where we're revising the manga article, go to User:Timothy_Perper/SDBXIndex and click on the one you want. Thanks!

I am no longer working on the manga page except to make minor typographical changes and to prevent wholesale deletions. Timothy Perper 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive box

I added the archive box, if you don't like, you can go into the history and revert my changes. - Peregrine Fisher 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been wikifying the shonen section. More new stuff soon. Do you have any reactions so far? Timothy Perper 05:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far. Do you have any refs that mention Naruto? It's one of the most popular things on wikipedia, and we could head off the fanboys if we add something about it before they do. - Peregrine Fisher 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoo-hah, do I ever. That and Death Note. But they're coming. I'm doing the older ones first. Also Full Metal Alchemist and a couple of others. FMA is a good example of a "family" oriented action/adventure, because the two heroes are trying to resurrect their dead mother. It sounds ghoulish, but it isn't -- it's really quite sentimental. I won't saay that though. Talk to you tomorrow if you're going to be online. Timothy Perper 06:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Betty Dodson

You may wish to take a look at our policy in regard to legal threats. In any event, the section in question appears to be reliably sourced. Furthermore, it is very hard for me to see how noting that someone's got a degree from an institution that isn't accredited is libelous. JoshuaZ 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Following up, I'm reexamining the sourcing now and have temporarily removed the text. JoshuaZ 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to read Wikpedia's legal policy on making threats (although I have) because I am not making threats at all. I am trying to warn you about people I have no control over -- they're the ones I'm telling you about. And I want you to understand this loud and clear: I personally have zilch to do with this question. I got involved only because I know people on a listserve who have genuine concerns about the issue. Do NOT try to shift this off onto me. Wiki policies directed to me won't do the tiniest bit of good if one of these outsiders decides to sue Wikipedia. THAT is what I'm trying to forestall.

On the talk page, it says:

Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

That's a strongly worded statement, that bold-face must be removed immediately. And that is the policy I'm following. You also say that you don't think the statement is libelous. Well, good for you -- but you aren't the people who are reading this out there.

Can we get on the same wavelength about this? I am suggesting caution, real, genuine caution to protect everyone.

Timothy Perper 19:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A small amount of advice: first, it doesn't help matters when one is dealing with this sort of thing to put anything in all caps like "LIBEL ALERT"; even when one is not the one threatening legal action, it looks almost the same and can in general have similar intimidating effects as making a legal threat oneself. Second, repeating that someone has considered something to be libel isn't very helpful, a short note, or a simple removal is fine. Third, in the future, it would be helpful if you explained to your colleagues that in general editing a Wikipedia article is much easier than a lawsuit. Fourth, speaking now as an admin with some minimal knowledge of legal matters, the comments wouldn't be libelous about Dodosn even if false, although the institute where she got the degree from might have a minimal case. Fifth, in general, the standard to succeed on a libel suit is very high, so in general, simple removal with an explanation on the talk page will generally suffice. In this case, a note that the page in question appeared to be a personal page that had been made to look mildly professional would have been helpful, especially since without that clarification it looked to a bystandder (i.e. me) that it was removal of well-sourced information- WP:BLP makes clear that reliably sourced information should in general not be so removed. In any event, thank you for dealing with this matter. JoshuaZ 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And let me give you a piece of advice. You are offering legal advice and opinion. DO NOT DO THAT. DO NOT.

Second, guess what happened first. I deleted the problematic material, and an editor came along and without asking or investigating simply reverted it. That was you, JoshuaZ. The result was a nasty little exchange between us that could have been avoided if you had investigated **before** simply hitting the "undo" button. But you didn't do anything like that -- and now you expect me meekly to listen to you as a font of wisdom? I won't. In the future, investigate first -- ask questions and determine what the lay of the land is. Then and only then, take action.

Third, you ended up agreeing with me that there's a problem here. Well, I'm glad that my judgment was in the right ballpark. But instead of saying "Well, OK, he was right -- we took care of it," you have now decided to lecture me about how to behave. Read my User Page -- I suspect that I am a lot older and more experienced than you. Don't condescend.

Fourth, in the future pay very close attention to the difference between warnings and alerts on the one hand, and threats on the other. There's a big difference between someone sayng, "Hey, don't step on the ice on that lake. See the sign?" and someone who threatens to drown you. You don't know the difference, but maybe you do now.

Fifth, I will now go back to the Betty Dodson page and edit my original warning. I will keep that page on my watchlist for when the next overhasty editor decides to act without any investigation and revert the deletion. Because if you did that, someone else will also.

Timothy Perper 09:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes on the Betty Dodson talk page, and noted as well that I had changed my comment. The originals, of course, are available on History, in case anyone is interested. But the question is now of historical interest only. Timothy Perper 09:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OEL Manga References

By any chance, do you have any references pertaining to "OEL manga", "Amerimanga", or relation? Given your sources, I'm putting my bets that you do. KyuuA4 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I organized them for you, and put some comments way at the end.

TokyoPop: OEL and now Global Manga

Anime News Network. May 5, 2006. Tokyopop To Move Away from OEL and World Manga Labels. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2006-05-05/tokyopop-to-move-away-from-oel-and-world-manga-labels

[Seven Seas Entertainment claims to have invented the term 'World Manga'; see ANN

correction below. This ANN entry claims that TokyoPop is abandoning the term "Original English :Language" manga.]

Gravett, Paul. 2006. ORIGINAL MANGA: MANGA NOT 'MADE IN JAPAN'. http://www.paulgravett.com/articles/092_originalmanga/092_originalmanga.htm

(It says: "The original version of this article appeared in The Bookseller in October 2006.")

ICv2. September 7, 2007. Interview with Tokyopop's Mike Kiley,

Part 1: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11249.html

Part 2: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11250.html

Part 3: http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11251.html

Reid, Calvin. March 28, 2006. HarperCollins, Tokyopop Ink Manga Deal. http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6319467.html

(It says: "This story originally appeared in PW Comics Week on March. 28, 2006.")

Robofish. (no date). Manga, American-style. http://www.tokyopop.com/Robofish/insidetp/688417.html

Seven Seas Entertainment: World Manga

Anime News Network. May 10, 2006. Correction: World Manga. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2006-05-10/correction-world-manga

[It says that Seven Seas Entertainment claims inventing the term "World Manga" in October :2004. Gives URLS.]

Forbes, Jake. (No date). What is World Manga? http://www.gomanga.com/news/features_gomanga_002.php

[Cited by preceding.]

Studio Ironcat: AmeriManga

Anime News Network. November 11, 2002. I.C. Entertainment (formerly Ironcat) to launch anthology of Manga by American artists. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2002-11-27/i.c-promotes-amerimanga

Note that date!

General Essay

Tai, Elizabeth. September 23, 2007. Manga outside Japan. http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/9/23/lifebookshelf/18898783&sec=lifebookshelf

--- OK, some comments and opinions. One has to be extremely careful believing any of these claims. Nearly all of them come from US manga publishers, who have vested interests in claiming that THEY, not their competition, did it first and better. Thus, these claims are basically marketing strategies.

In fact, one can suspect that all so-called OEL manga, Global manga, Amerimanga, and whatnot manga are marketing ploys and nothing more. For example, NO ONE in the industry, least of all at TokyoPop, is going to say that Studio Ironcat did all this back in 2002 -- although they did, and I remember it. Well, Studio Ironcat is defunct, and no one has any reason to correct the record.

That would be hard to document, but Kiley makes it very clear that TokyoPop is in the business of selling comics. I do not know of any serious, scholarly comparisons between Japanese manga and these forms of manga-like comics ("International Neo-Manga" if you like), but to my eye most OEL manga look exactly like American cartooning. But to CALL them "manga" means, the marketeers hope, that will obtain so-called "catch sales" in comic book stores and elsewhere, simply because they will be shelved with Japanese manga.

This is a multi-million dollar business, and one should not be fooled into thinking that the publishers are anything but businessmen. They're after the dollar, and if calling it manga, even something as un-manga-esque as Giffen and Roman's I Luv Halloween, well, call it manga if that sells it. Call it anything -- including "Arthur." It's like labeling a bottle of wine "Contains NO trans fats!"

Is that a harsh and evil judgment? No, not really. In Francophone cartooning, the bande dessinée tradition, there is non-Japanese manga ("la nouvelle manga" of Frédéric Boilet), but that is based on artists, not marketeers, adopting and adapting Japanese originals. There's a long tradition of that in France, called "Japonisme". But I do not see American OEL manga artists following in Boilet's footsteps; I see young artists trying to sell their work to anyone who will buy it, as artists have always done. That is NOT a slam against American artists; it's a slam against the rotten financial condition young American artists find themselves in.

Well, OK, rant aside, what about reliability? I tried to give you some Wiki-reliable sources. ICv2 and Publisher's Weekly are impeccable; Anime News Network is about as good as Wikipedia (meaning extremely variable), and the publishers themselves are selling their products. Publisher-derived material should (in my opinion) be used only to support statements like "TokyoPop claims that XYZ."

Lastly, enter the fans and otaku. THEY will claim anything on their blogs that happens to make them feel good. Before manga hit the market, no one -- I mean NO ONE -- said that Frank Miller's work was influenced by Japanese cartooning. That would have been treason. But, now that manga is big, some otaku will say that Miller was *really* a mangaka. And other otaku will howl bloody murder. None of these opinions are worth the bandwidth they're wasting, at least in my rather curmudgeonly opinion. If you're going to try to document these claims, yes, you'll have to cite the blogs and whatnot (actually, I don't think I have references to any of them), and then cite someone else's opposite opinion from another blog.

You can get away with this on Wiki, with its No Blog policy, by using the blogs to prove the existence of certain opinions. Thus: "One class of fan claims XYZ (for example, refs 1 and 2), but amother class of fan claims the opposite (refs 3 and 4)." Then you're using the blog to prove that these opinions exist, and not using the blog to prove, contra NPOV, that the opinion is true. That is a proper use of citation.

So there you are. Let me know how it works out.

Timothy Perper 00:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I'll be making use of this info. to expand the OEL manga article. As for the rant, yes. Fandom can get a bit crazy. KyuuA4 20:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon

Ah, I see you're becoming acquainted with the madness that is Wikipedia. Other than fighting over the illustration, Lolicon is a pretty quiet little corner. I pulled up the article you mentioned on the talk page from Ebsco and did a search for the term lolicon and got zilch. It's not a subject I have any particular interest in--I have just been trying for some time to get the folks who are interested in it to work on improving the article. You appear to have insight into the weaknesses of the entry, and I think it would be great if you did some work on it. Thanks. -Jmh123 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. So tell me more about your ideas-- put 'em on my user talk page, If you want to find out more about my editing. look up "manga". I did the introduction, overview, and the history section after Word War II up to and includiing shojo, nothing else, Timothy Perper 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And BTW look up my user page, Timothy Perper 02:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. So tell me more about your ideas-- put 'em on my user talk page, If you want to find out more about my editing. look up "manga". I did the introduction, overview, and the history section after Word War II up to and includiing shojo, nothing else, Timothy Perper 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How about we start with history? You can see in the article there are two opposing views of the origins: one under "origins" which was translated by Wikipedia editor Kasuga (also a lolicon and manga artist) and one in the following section which I wrote, taken from Sharon Kinsella's article. Well, even before that, there's the issue that the article glosses over the larger lolicon phenomenon (you'll see I added a bit on that today) to focus on lolicon manga almost entirely. When it comes to manga, I think there are unanswered questions about the relationship between lolicon manga and manga in general: is the boundary clear, what are the commonalities/differences, and so forth? Some of the editors are very adamant that lolicon is not porn, or not specifically or necessarily pornographic, but haven't been able to explain that well. Another question I have is lolicon manga in the West: we have virtually nothing on this. What do western people watch or look at that could be called lolicon manga? Is it primarily an internet phenomenon or do they also purchase videos or books from Japan? Or westerners also draw lolicon manga?

Here are some of my (redacted) comments from the talk page over time:

• I applied over at translation yesterday asking for a translation of the relevant sections of the Japanese lolicon entry to try to resolve the conflicting versions of the origins. I don't think what I've written implies that female mangaka object to lolicon; rather, it indicates that they originally drew a different kind of character. Would you say that the lolicon of the mangaka's you have linked portrays girls as victims & pets or as tough & clever? If they also draw victimized girls, and if most of those who buy their work are also female, then that would call Kinsella's thesis into question.

My impression is that true rorikon manga is rare in Japan. For one thing, it is very illegal. I have no data on the subject, and do not go near anything resembling rorikon hentai. I won't touch it with a ten-foort pole. More below.Timothy Perper 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All I want to do is fix this article in hopes that with a better article people will quit fussing about the illustration. -Jmh123 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of my sources said by the 2000's half of Japanese animated pornography had become child pornography, which brings up a question--is lolicon just any drawn/animated child pornography that features little girls, and, if not, what distinguishes it? Another question--are the girls in lolicon of ambiguous age as in other anime? The "lolicon in the west" section is pretty short. What do people watch? How/where? Do Americans draw it? Europeans? These sites such as 4chan seem to be very influential, at least on some of the Wikipedia folks--what are they exactly, and what role do they play in the reception of lolicon in the west?

There is hardly any research on any of these questions. Over time, if you go to enough bars and strike up enough conversations with people, you'll hear all kinds of stories about Japan -- and that's all it is. Bar talk, gossip, rumor. No research. Timothy Perper 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So when the article states that "Lolicon is a widespread phenomenon in Japan, where it is a frequent subject of scholarly articles and criticism," that is false? -Jmh123 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if it's accurate. The first problem is defining "lolicon." Yes, there has been immense concern over child sexual abuse in Japan, starting with the so-called "Miyazaki incident," and a great deal pro and con has been written about manga in Japan. The second problem is getting past the writer's biases. To an anti-lolicon writer, it's everywhere, a deadly scourge, etc, etc. To a lolicon-neutral writer, there's some of it around, mostly in fetish mags and websites. I don't know any easy way to find Wiki-verifiable material about this.

How about the second half of the sentence? Is it a frequent subject of scholarly articles and criticism? -Jmh123 01:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• So what's the appeal of lolicon in the west? Why is it so popular? What is it exactly anyway? If the term "child pornography" is offensive to those who view it, and "NO child pornography" is the first rule, then why doesn't the entry state that? The article should be written so that people who don't know anything about lolicon can understand the genre better.

Yes, I agree that education is very important. But I also notice that this article is strong on moral opinion, and weak on definitions. Timothy Perper 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Where in the world am I supposed to get these definitions or get any information? That's why I'm asking for help. I can only include what I can find. -Jmh123 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• The sites/forums seem to be very influential--what are they exactly, and what role do they play in the reception of lolicon in the west? I think you can describe the forums and name the most prominent ones, without linking or a citation. What about games? Are they popular in the west?

• And could someone please name some of the most popular or famous lolicon manga/mangaka?

I doubt if your fellow editors would tolerate such a thing -- "That makes it too easy to find!" some of them would say. In addition, any links to names or websites would be or should be suspected of being police sting operations. This stuff is very very illegal in the US, and the authorities try very hard to enforce those laws. Timothy Perper 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh for Pete's sake! Examples are actually quite easy to find online, but ew, no thanks. Descriptive, analytical information about it as a genre of anime/manga? Not so much. I'm not looking for links, and we wouldn't want to link to these sites anyway, but I see no reason to protect the names of particular manga or anime or forums. Which reminds me, another possible angle is moe. Is there anything published (including in Japanese) about the role of moe in the lolicon phenomenon? -Jmh123 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd still warn people that those sites may be monitored and/or run by the police. Moe should not be confused with lolicon. US fanboys define moe to mean what they like. I suspect that most of the literature on moe is in Japanese and is unreadable to most Americans.

I hope this is helpful in giving you a sense of my questions and what I see as issues in the article. If it becomes overly long we can easily break off the legal controversies into a separate entry linked to this one, which we have discussed doing in the past. There was a time when that was virtually the sole content of the entry. Here's a link to the June, 2007 version: [1]. -Jmh123 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

history

OK, now that I've vented my frustrations, let's get back to history and origins. Someone tagged the material Kasuga had translated today, which is under "origins"--can you help at all with the first questions I asked? I've bolded the questions that perhaps you can help with. ^^^ Thanks. -Jmh123 23:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize with your frustrations -- there is a serious lack of scholarly, reliable information about all these topics in English.

OK, I read Kasuga's material. It's unreferenced, which is a serious matter here because his conclusions sound like opinions to me. It would take an expert far wsier than I to disagree, but I can't agree either. It's one of those "So you say" paragraphs. Wiki abounds in this kind of fan-style tossing off of stuff, and no one can verify it.

It's a translation from the Japanese Wikipedia lolicon article, which isn't to say these aren't someone's opinions. -Jmh123 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinsella is pointing to a real phenomenon -- better known nowadays as YAOI -- but her connection between YAOI and lolicon seems farfetched to me. YAOI deals with idealized male-male erotic and emotional bonding, and is drawn and read primarily by women; the target audience for lolicon manga is, as Kinsella says, men. Back in the 1990s, when Kinsella was writing, not much manga had been translated into English, and concerns were very common among at least some women scholars that manga in general portrayed women as objects of intrusive and exploitative male gaze and that manga portrayed women in general as subject to male sexual violence (rape, torture, and the like). As manga became better known in the US, these Orientalist stereotypes fell apart, though some die-hard writers still accept them.

The only lolicon I've seen, from Kasuga's site, fit Kinsella's stereotype to a "T". That is, fearful, naked women and girls in ropes and chains. -Jmh123 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Kinsella wrote about manga a decade ago, portrayals of sexuality and of girls and women are extremely varied. You might be interested in an encyclopedia article Martha Cornog and I wrote -- you can find it at http://kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/jp.php#unconvent (you'll have to scroll down to Section 8.D to find our contribution). You can pick up some of the debate in the earlier subsections in section 8. We don't deal with lolicon, though.

Here's a quote from the current Wiki lolicon article. It illustrates some problems.

In the late 1980s (Kinsella) states that men began to follow these women's styles in writing amateur manga about girl characters: "Lolicom manga usually features a voluptuous girl heroine with large eyes and a pre-pubescent body, scantily clad in an outfit which approximates a cross between a 1970s bikini and a space-age suit of armour. She is liable to be cute, tough and clever." [8] As the genre created by and for men evolved, according to Kinsella, it moved from these cute, tough heroines towards depictions of girls as sexual victims: naked, helpless, fearful, sometimes bound or chained and was expanded into computer games and animated videos.

I do not know how a "voluptuous" heroine can have a "pre-pubescent" body, and would worry that someone wasn't thinking too clearly when they wrote this. Nor do I understand the logic of why depictions of one kind evolved into another kind. But very little was known about manga in the US in the 1980s, so comments like Kinsella's are probably best considered of historical interest only, and should not be treated as reliable sources of information about manga in the 1980s and 1990s.

Is that closer to what you want to know?

So basically the sum of what you are telling me there are no sources, no reliable information about lolicon that we can use. -Jmh123 01:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Perper 00:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying about determining the truth or lack thereof for these theories. But you can certainly cite them as theories or proposals and use the material you have. "One group of writers suggests that --- ABC --- add refs. By contrast, another group of writers suggests --- DEF -- add refs." Just fill in whatever the ABC's and DEF's are, meaning the details of each set of ideas. That helps avoid the POV problem that has plagued this entry from the start. (You can say "The authors of the Japanese Wikipedia entry on lolicon argue that (or propose that) --- GHI ---add ref to Jp Wiki.")

You might use the same technique for describing definitions or characterizations of lolicon. This would help you deal with lolicon, child pornography, and sexual abuse of children, simply by saying that "certain critics believe --- JKL --- add refs." You could cover quite a lot that way without ever losing NPOV.

A great deal of material about sexuality, especially explosive issues like lolicon, leads to this kind of conflict among theories. And then we rely on words like argue, propose, and suggest to describe what these people are saying.

Timothy Perper 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that's exactly how I have handled the controversies I'm asking about. I just removed "according to Japanese Wikipedia" from the "origins" section yesterday[2] because of the tag that was added with an edit comment stating that "Wikipedia is not a citable source." I haven't decided whether to remove that section (translated from Japanese Wikipedia and added by Kasuga), as it is without sourcing, or continue to try to find sourcing for it. I realize Wikipedia has a lot of problems, but it's also a good idea to pay a bit of attention to an individual's contributions before deciding that we're all equally uninformed. What I was looking for from you is some additional sources of information on this topic, some specific references that could address those questions that I have asked. If a student were consulting with me on a research project, this is how we would approach the process: the student would tell me about questions he or she might have, and I would provide direction by suggesting sources that would address those questions. I should have made it more clear that my intent in asking questions was to obtain information, and saved us both a lot of trouble. If I understand you correctly, you know of no sources of information on the topic of lolicon. I hope you will feel free to address any problems you see in the lolicon article by joining in the editing process yourself. Your contributions as an editor will be welcome. -Jmh123 12:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, you're right -- I don't know of any reliable, Wiki-verifiable sources about lolicon. There are -- as you know -- lots of other sources on the web, fan burbling, pictures-mostly websites, and other cynical, mostly pornographic sources. But I myself don't know of any work that has seriously examined lolicon and that would therefore provide answers to your questions. What I may be missing are passing references to lolicon in the course of other work, but. for sexuality, there really isn't all that much serious work to begin with. What I am not familiar with is work in various Japanese-American studies journals and societies; some of them might have had an article on something related. But I haven't found it. Do keep looking! Timothy Perper 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Publisher buying wikpedia

Hey Tim,

I see you haven't edted in a while, but maybe you'll get this. I was reading your user page comments, and have a response to Random House or whoever buying wikipedia. The thing about WP that is problematic for profit minded companies is that our text is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Basically the world owns WP'S text. If a publisher wanted to copy our entire web site and call it their own, they can do so without paying any money. The same for any individual. Answers.com and a bunch of other web sites already do it. They reason they don't become wikipedia is because our editors are used to editing here and not at some other web site, it's inertia. We're a non-profit with rules that I think preclude us from being bought, but even if that isn't correct and someone does buy wikipedia, if it annoys our editors enough to overcome that inertia, we could move elsewhere. Anyways, it's something interesting and you might mention it to your friend. Wikipedia is free to us, and is free to any company that thinks they can do a better job. Sometimes I wish Google would copy WP and create a Fork (software development), but it will take a change that really annoys the editors to do it. - Peregrine Fisher 03:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... the GNU license is only part of the attraction of buying up Wiki. It's the ad revenues that a buyer would really want, all the little signs "Ads by Google" that come up next to the main text. So far as the editors go, one of the first things a commercial purchaser would do is appoint a "Senior Editorial Board" with an Executive Editor, or some such title, whose #1 job is to get rid of 60% of the present editors. At least 60%. That person's #2 job would be to institute a sign-in page, where you enter your name, email address, and user name, just like signing on to amazon.com. At the top of the page it'd say something like "Why sign in?" Then:

Wikipedia no longer allows anonymous editing. That's to prevent vandals from destroying Wikipedia and to stop people from writing obscenities everywhere. Think of it as an ANTI-GRAFITTI effort.

But it's just speculation...

I've been doing various small editing jobs, like keeping an eye on several pages and reverting garbage. I've just finished writing a mid-length article about manga for a print journal. Wiki is an odd collection of blogs, opinions, some good work, and weird things. But I don't want to make a career of it, so I went back to writing for print outlets. They stick around longer in libraries...

Timothy Perper 04:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It's complicated for sure. Like predicting what the next big thing on the internet is; if you can do it, you're a millionare. I know you like referenced articles, so you might think about adding Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Template:GA number to your watchlist. They are only a few thousand out of millions of articles, btu they might give you hope. It's also a nice outlet for demanding references and well written artilces. - Peregrine Fisher 05:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy talking to an academic about this, becuase this is what will make or break wikipedia. Either we will gain the respect of the academic community and thrive, or we'll be stuck being written by teenagers. Those links I provided in my previous comments are our attempt to impress and therefore recruit people who know what they're doing. WP has roughly 2 million artilces, but I don't think what's important is our percentage of well written articles, but how many well written articles we have. We have maybe 4 or 5 thousand well written articles, and my guessimate is that we need 10 or 20 thousand so that when people come here to research something, they "happen" upon a good article. That will take 3-4 years. - Peregrine Fisher 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rig Veda

I am sorry you withdrew your comment on the Talk page. Would you consider reinstating it? I think it might be of interest to other readers. Try not to get depressed - Wikipedia really is a fabulous resource in spite of its many, many faults. I know what it is like - I have been in some dreadful flaming wars myself - and they indeed hurt. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill 01:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-)

I'm never sure how people will react to that comment on my talkpage but it's nice to see when people agree with it. Serendi^podous 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't

Please don't remove it! Look the talk page I think there is need for dicussion. Thanks --Beyond silence (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit history

Here it is. Tracks the progress of manga pretty well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fixed Watanabe reference in manga article

Oy. Sorry 'bout that. Any information about Watanabe would be cool, but don't make it a high priority -- especially not higher than fixing Manga. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to email me the Watanabe material through the "E-mail this user" link on my profile. If that doesn't work, I can get you a more direct address. (I'm interested in seeing the Watanabe article too. We don't do a very good job on Wikipedia with the older shojo/josei mangaka, except the wildly popular ones like Ai Yazawa I meant Naoko Takeuchi, of course.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yazawa's popular too... I'm not sure I can attach a file through the Wiki email thingie, but I'll try. But first I want to check the first 50 or so refs in the manga article. More soon. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No rush -- we're not on a deadline, after all. Besides, it's a holiday. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipetan visits the Manga article again

I like her! Her place is in the article...:D But I don't know why people take her out! --Beyond silence 15:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User page comments

"But then he said something that made me stop. I'll paraphrase -- "It's only a matter of time before one of the big publishers, like Random House or Google, buys Wikipedia." I objected that (to my knowledge, at least) Wikipedia isn't for sale, but he only smiled. "They have debts for all those computers," he replied. "And the debts get bigger the more popular Wikipedia gets." I mumbled something about Wikipedia having a "No Crystal Ball" policy about not predicting the future, but that policy doesn't operate out here in the real world. And I ended up wondering how long Wikipedia can last in its present incarnation. Any for-profit publisher who buys Wikipedia will make changes, and those too I wonder about... I had no answer to my friend's comment, and I still don't."

I don't really know what your friend is thinking. Debts? There are no debts for the computers and hosting. The ones that weren't donated by, say, Yahoo!, were paid for with cash on the barrelhead. Hosting is a constant expense, but the WMF gets special rates, and annual donations have always been enough to cover that million a year or so expense. And there is a limit to how much traffic will be directed Wikipedia's way, anyway, and we're more or less nearing it.

As for buying Wikipedia - how does one buy a charity? Why would one want to buy the Foundation in the first place? All the content of all the projects is already made available for totally free at WP:DUMP, right down to full and complete SQL dumps (not that a live feed, which the WMF sells to folks like Answer.com, is all that expensive). If one were to somehow acquire the WMF's assets, about all you'd get is some nice hardware, a few domain names, and some IP like the logos. --Gwern (contribs) 18:22 8 January 2008 (GMT)

I can't really say what he was thinking beyond what I was paraphrasing. Bob (his real name, BTW, and I'm not making this up or disguising my own views under a pseudonym) has a background in print publication, and with publishers who are quite capable of offering a 5 digit advances to authors. A million dollars a year is very small compared to some of these companies.

From what I see -- and this is my opinion -- I can easily see Wikipedia Foundation accepting a partnership with a corporate publisher if the price is right. An outfit like Random House, Microsoft or Google could easily make such an offer. Not that I'm predicting that they will -- far from it. What I am saying is that there is no guarantee that Wiki will survive once Google gets into the on-line encyclopedia business and competition starts building. Even a consortium of universities could start an online encyclopedia that would offer Wikipedia a serious run for its money. The prize, it seems to me, is fame. Wiki is way up there on the list of top sites visited, partly because there's little else (and a lot of other encyclopedias merely mirror Wiki articles). But with fame comes potential advertising revenue -- and then the competition starts.

The reason I mentioned this in my user page comments is that despite Wiki's No Crystal Ball policy, we can and maybe should think of what the future of online encyclopedias will be. Google Knol is only the first shot over the bow, and there will no doubt be more. The Wikipedia model -- anyone can edit it, anyone can join in, no one signs the articles -- is not necessarily the best business model for running an online encyclopedia. Wiki would be **quite** vulnerable to an entrepreneurial encyclopedia that said its articles were written by genuine experts and not by anonymous high school students with screen names like Kwodbog6. Unfair? Yes. Would it work? Quite possibly. So it's food for thought, how long the Wiki model can last.

Timothy Perper (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried. Any such partnership will be very closely scrutinized by the community, and if there's any bad influence, things will happen. The Spanish Wikipedia forked just because of discussion of running advertising, after all.

As for competition - the future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed. Wikipedia has been in competition for ages and ages. From when Encyclopedia Britannica was free, to the 1911 EB, to Nupedia, to Everything2, it was born into competition. And that competition is often better. MathWorld, MacTutor, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikia encyclopedias like Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia, Citizendium, Digital Universe, Answers.com etc. etc. Knol is just another player in a crowded pool, and only interesting because it's Google. It doesn't worry me - if Wikipedia has problems, Knol will have them in spades. --Gwern (contribs) 18:01 9 January 2008 (GMT)

You may be right! Let's hope so. In the meantime, there's a discussion on the manga talk page about what art to use -- your input would be valuable. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manga article

Thanks, I really appreciate your compliments, you've done a great job as well. It's still a bit far from WP:GAC but we'll get there. I'm not certain what to do with the publication section, as I have but only limited knowledge of manga history. I do collect manga. If, however, you ever have any manga/anime-related questions, please feel free to ask. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I remunerate you with "You making me sick" award for your undids.--Beyond silence 15:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)