I don't think ZineWiki is a place for reviews. At least, if we're going to do reviews, they shouldn't be mixed in with the regular articles, they shoul dbe offset like the Punk Planet articles are so that everyone knows they are seperate. Alan Fall of Autumn 04:06, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
I agree, this is a book review, it makes no sense to have it on a Wiki, much less a Wiki devoted to zines. It should probably just be deleted. dan10things 11:49, 26 September 2006 (EDT)
Review vs entry
I meant it to be just info on the book - and the book is surely just as indie as Game Quest for ex. Perhaps I can rewrite it. PS Dan is against anything I do so I take everything he says as just the general no to all. Musea 13:51, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
I'll add this - this novel fits every definition to make it eligible on zinewiki. This is a single person published book - and a great one. And the author is as indie as you can get. Musea 14:17, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
Tom, you are paranoid, I honestly didn't know you had written it. Alan commented first, I saw his comment in the "recent changes" page, read it, and agreed. I thought it was someone confused as to what ZineWiki was about and reviewing a book here, I figured any existing editor would know better.
While I totally support indie projects, not all of them fall within the scope of the ZineWiki. Similarly I don't think bands should be plugging their indie CDs here. Stuff like indie books, indie bands and their releases, indie crafts, indie art projects, etc. have nothing to do with zines. It seems to me the only books that we should be including are books about zines like the F5 Reader, The Book of Zines, etc. But that's just this one person's opinion, if you believe otherwise, by all means make the case for it. There are tons of "single person published books," should we open the door the thousands that are out there, I fear the focus of the ZineWiki on zines would get dilluted, if not lost. dan10things 14:30, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
- We have about four or five 'books' that I'm aware of on the site, however, all of those books tie back to zines, either the content of the book is about zines (Stolen Sharpie Revolution), or the author was once a zinester, or the author has made some other incredible contribution to zines. For instance, the Jeremy Robert Johnson page may look like it has little to do with zines, but he has written time and time again for Verbicide and did a reading for the Zinester Podcasts and tables at the Portland Zine Symposium every year... so, he, and his self-published books count, in my opinion. If the author of the book you've reviewed here has made comparable contributions to the zine world, by all means it stays (as an entry, not a review). But those are just my thoughts on it, and I removed the relevency tag when we started ZineWiki for a reason. Alan Fall of Autumn 19:13, 27 September 2006 (EDT)
- It seems like this one should be deleted then, I think the same is true with the Game Quest listing Tom mentioned, I just read it. There is a big potential for abuse here with book publishers and authors essentially trying to get free ads here for their books--books that have nothing to do with zines. I'd delete both, but I could not see a function to do so. I also think the authors should be notified first. dan10things 20:55, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
I really hope zinewiki doesn't start keeping out work by indie artists on technicalities. Is this the time to start restricting contributions, contributors, and entries? Let's look at the def of the site ZineWiki is an open-source encyclopedia devoted to zines and independent media. It covers the history, production, distribution and culture of the small press. Feel free to add your project, contribute additional information to already existing pages, or to edit what’s already published. Subjects should be explained in terms of their relevance to zines and independent media.
I think you would have to be a lawyer looking for loopholes to rule out some indie novels but not others. This is small press for sure . Numerous chapbooks authors may or may not have written zines. Do we start ruling some but not other chapbooks? Webb HAS contributed to Musea. And so has Leopold (Game Quest) come to think of it.. Musea 22:21, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
- I think what Dan is afraid of is every person who self-publishes a vanity book and sells them on their site via PayPal will barge in and clutter our encyclopedia up with entries that are basically a commercial for their product. Because books are different than zines, in price and scope and production. Yes the definition that Emerson and I wrote says "small press," this was done to include self-published pamphlettes, journals, quarterlies, newspapers - things that weren't called zines, but that were made in the same spirit. If both authors have contributed to your zine, awesome, then they are welcome here. But their entries might be edited to contain factual and relevent info only, and to not sound like a sales pitch.
- Also, Dan, I'm upping your account here, so you should have revert and delete privledges now, I hadn't before because we had just met and I wanted to make sure you were going to be sticking with this. So that brings the admins list to myself, Kate, you and Emerson. Alan Fall of Autumn 23:19, 28 September 2006 (EDT)
Dan has an extreme, long standing prejudice against the Underground LIterary Alliance, and every one and everything connected to it. Can you, Dan be fair at zinewiki, when you've had such a consistent anti-ULA stand for so many years? Musea 13:12, 29 September 2006 (EDT)
Tom, try to get out of paranoid-mode for a minute and see that Alan was the first person to question why this was included on the ZineWiki. It's not a technicality to limit the scope of ZineWiki to zines and zine-related projects, it's sticking with the mission and vision of this wonderful resource. Keep your eyes on the prize: zines. If you are adding something that isn't a zine, isn't about zines, or isn't obviously related to the zine community, it's not appropriate for the ZineWiki. No lawyers are needed, it's really a no-brainer, the books that are included should be about zines. dan10things 13:17, 29 September 2006 (EDT)
Ok, Alan said to come here and talk to make my points.
I just noticed the entry for my novel, Game Quest, has been deleted. I tried to write as fair an account of the book as possible. If people felt it was too one-sided (which I honestly was trying hard to avoid!), then they are free to edit it. I thought that was the point of wiki? I think it's unfair to disclude indie books merely because they are longer and usually singular in nature. It doesn't change the amount of work that went into them, the spirit behind them (essentially the same as printing a zine!) Book entries look like reviews because there is only one book. If someone put up a zine entry for zine that had only one issue, it would essentially be a review for that zine as well. I run the ezine Red Fez Publications, and have printed several small poetry zines and a zine novella The Red Fez. But my format is novels. I'm part of the ULA which also is a big advocate for zeening and independent art. Are we going to start dividing our forces, our common endeavours and hopes for a ground-up culture into 'real arists' and 'poseurs'? There's this new link with Punk Planet. Punk Planet is not a zine, it's mass manufactured. Does it belong here any more than an indie artist? Punk Planet also reviews indie books. My book is, essentially, about a company that pioneers a new art form out of their garage - indie games, essentially - and is taken over by the heartless money-making machine of the mainstream market. I fail to see how that does not relate to the zine movement!
Zines are (were, at least) about breaking boundaries. Why are we suddenly throwing up walls?
I think we're splitting hairs when we say 'because this has too many pages, it's not a zine.' I think the worry that independent authors are going to start coming out of the woodwork to put 'ads' on here is a little far-fetched. First off, the only indie authors who are even going to know about zinewiki are those already involved in the scene on some level. Secondly, people don't just come to zinewiki and SLAM! get hit with advertisements. You only find entries by looking for them. People will only find book entries if they've already searched the author or found some other reasonable link to it, from a zine entry perhaps. I'd be very surprised (though happy!) if the entry for Game Quest here sold one book! The point, for me, is to have a record of it. Why aren't we worried that every half-assed teenaged zinester who put out a comic they drew while picking their nose in history class is going to contribute here? It's about as reasonable.
It seems counter-productive to me to disclude books. Sure, make another category. Make some terms for what counts and what doesn't, but ignoring art that doesn't fall into the rigid traditional category of zine seem harmful. In any case, I think SOME effort should be made to contact the author! People like myself add entries to zinewiki not because we're looking for free advertising, but because we want to be part (and feel we ARE part) of this movement. Remember, zinewiki relies on people wanting to contribute and join and be a part of it as much as zinesters rely on zinewiki to document it.
Those are my thoughts.
Ok, my ideas for books on ZineWiki
As I stated above, I think books published by zinesters, or by someone who has continuously contributed to zines, are relevent. And of course this goes without saying about books about zines. So, looking into Leopold's other contributions to ZineWiki he does have his e-zine listed here, and because he added that before his book, I don't see him hopping on just to advertise his book.
Therefor, I'm going to restore his book's entry. However, this is not an open invitation for every self-published book to get it's own entry here. Only those published by zinesters, contributors to zines, or titles about zines.
I understand the definition says "small press" and technically all indie books are small press, but that definition was used by Emerson and myself for the sake of brevity. The admins here do have the right to define what is and what isn't acceptable on the site. And unlike Wikipedia, it's not the relevence of the author or the work, but rather the format of the work that's in question. There is a difference. Alan Fall of Autumn 09:09, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
Ok, that's fair. I think as long as your difference is clearly defined. It isn't right now, though, except for on this little talk section. I reiterate my belief that you have very little to fear about any and all independent authors coming on here. I also think, that if it's format defined, you should ask yourselves whether chapbooks count as zines. Good luck sorting it all out, anyway. LitLives 10:06, 30 September 2006 (MST)
I still need a fair and direct response to my question. Dan can you be fair with the ULA , its members, and its publications? It's a straight yes or no answer.
Also if you, Alan, are becoming more stringent on your definition of what is or is not right for wikipedia - perhaps its best to make that more clear. I guess that is part of the growing process of doing a project like this. I seriously don't see the items listed so far as a threat. Who knows what the future entries might be, but none of these here and now, seem to represent anything outside of the zinewiki zine mentality. One advantage zinewiki has over say wiki is that there is more room for indies, and less rush to exclude. I'm glad to see Game Quest back , and anyone who sees and reads either of these two novels GQ, or CC, will agree about their place here. Also everything I said about Cruising Central was accurate - I don't see any promotional fat. But if others do - please edit - that's the way to correct any problems IMO. Musea 16:13, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
Woh! I just typed the above and now I find out Dan rushed to delete. Even regular wiki doesn't do it that fast. I thought in discussion above - that we had agreed that both novels were within rights due to being zine related - why the rush to delete? Didn't I answer all concerns? This seems a little heavy handed. How about allowing for some discussion and reasonable debate. 16:22, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
- Tom, we haven't had to delete articles here before, unless they were obvious jibberish/spam. So, we don’t have a tested procedure for it like Wikipedia does. I think Dan has a reasonable concern in that the focus could be taken away from zines very quickly if we allow entries for self-published books and other media (music albums) that are not zine related. (notice: we do have an audio CD listing already, the IPRC Audio Zine but it's not music, it's a collection of audio readings by zinesters)
- I'll restore the book entry you added under one condition, I'd like to see the info posted somewhere in the wiki how that author has contributed to zines. If he/she's written one in the past, has contributed to a few in the past, etc, please point in out within the Wiki. That's why I restored Leopold's after doing a little digging and finding that he had posted about his e-zine here before posting about his book. Had I seen that earlier, his entry wouldn't be an issue.
- Please realize that Dan and I are the two top contributors here currently and have spent countless hours researching and adding other people's work to this site and building a solid resource. So when we see someone come along and potentially use it for self-publicity (not inferring that that's what you were doing with this entry, just saying it could be construed that way), we take it very personal. This project is meant to be a lasting document, not a classifieds section. Alan Fall of Autumn 16:38, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
- Tom, I will not pander towards your crazy or paranoid dellusions, nor will I argue with you endlessly. I know you, you will argue and argue until we give up and let you have your way or get yourself banned from contributing. Why not instead, step back, breathe, and remember what the ZineWiki is about. It's not about you, your writer's friends, or Musea. It's not a dumping ground for all the reviews you write. It's not a contest to see if you can link as many ZineWiki entries to Musea because you may have mentioned or reviewed them once. What the ZineWiki is, is a wonderful resource that dozens of people are contributing to in an effort to document zine history, zine related projects, current zines and the zine community. It's about zines, that should be entirely clear to you, but somehow isn't. I have a few suggestions for you:
1. Stop whining like a fucking baby. Someone needs to say it, I will. 2. Have some respect for the efforts, work and opinions of the other people from the zine community here. Don't dismiss what I, Alan or anyone else says without listening to what we are saying. You ask questions, but know at the time you are asking them you are already going to disagree with the answer. That's not what communication is about. 3. Get DIY and consider starting your own Wiki. IndieWiki.com is still available, grab it! You can creat a wider Wiki dedicated to everything you want, regardless if it has to do with zines or not. 4. Please do not ruin ZineWiki by making it all about you. Keep your eyes on the prize, it's about zines. Don't wreck it and make it no fun or worthwhile to contribute to for the rest of us. Because if you do, I know I'll be walking.
Don't bother answering, like I said I'm not going to argue with you endlessly. Just actually read what I wrote a few times and try to take it to heart. Thanks, dan10things 17:20, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
Alan, Charlotte Web has helped Musea for almost 15 years. That should be enough. If you need more let me know. She has a long and sustained record and reputation in Dallas - she's older than any of us - in supporting local artists and musicians in countless ways. She is perhaps best known for her work for community radio.
But, as to the entry, I think something like this should be talk first and delete next. Why the rush to delete? You wrote that you had a similar bad experience with deletion at wikipedia of something you wrote. Didn't you start zinewiki partly because of that deletion? This feels the same to me. Also I don't understand about it being a promotion problem. It's not my novel and what I said was factual and fair - if you found anything in it that was more promotional than any other zine or chapbook entry that I've done - please edit as you think you should. I'm not promoting it anymore than I'm promoting all the zines that I write about. Listing and telling what they are is basic info. I did more on this than some chapbooks because it was a much bigger work and had a lot more in it - consider it a big zine.
Dan - It's clear you can't honestly say you'll be fair for ULA related entries. Alan should know that you've been adamantly against them for years. And that both these novels are directly or indirectly related to the ULA. May I suggest to Dan that in order to insure fairness at wikipedia and the endless arguments like this that are taking up all our times, he NOT delete any ULA related entries - but instead make your thoughts and arguments known, then let Alan or some other party make the final decision. That seems fair when there is such a conflict of interest. In such ULA cases I would encourage Dan to simply step aside as a judge would when he has a direct conflict of interest.
I would encourage zinewiki to be more about inclusion not exclusivity. Perhaps listing these novels as chapbooks would be better. And then delete the entire book category. Those are my thoughts. Let me know if you need more background on Webb's zine experience. Also are you deleting a lot of other entries? Musea 22:26, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
Later, Sun.: - I notice that CCentral, novel has been reinstated and edited. Fair enough. I think that some of its merits have been guted - but more importantly, I think compromise is the best policy - and I'm glad to see it reinstated. Musea 22:35, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
entry deletion policy
Tom, thanks for your above replies. I edited the entry to read more like the other entries here. If there is anything important missing (as I have not read the book) feel free to add it again. But prior to the edit I believe it went into unneccessary detail.
I emailed Dan and we both agreed we need to come up with a deletion policy. I will be posting openly about that here tomorrow and encourage you to join in on the formation of the policy so it can be fairly put into practice.
Yes one of the reasons I started ZineWiki was the result from an entry on a prominent zinester that I started at Wikipedia being deleted. But this case was different, as it wasn't the author or work in question, but Dan was questioning the format. He doesn't believe any books should be listed here, unless they were written about zines. However, I can see how other books might be relevent - but I agree that not every indie book belongs here.
Keep your eyes peeled for the policy formation tomorrow and hopefully we can set some guidelines so this won't happen in the future. Thanks. Alan Fall of Autumn 22:49, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
Tom, I'm absolutely confused about what you are talking about. Is "Cruisin' Central" written by someone in the ULA? If so, that's news to me. My objection to the book being included is it's not about zines, I fail to see any connection with the ULA at all. Seriously Tom, why do you need to come here and create all the drama? This ZineWiki is supposed to be for the entire zine community, please don't fuck it up. dan10things 23:13, 1 October 2006 (EDT)
Dan, I'm asking you to be fair. That supports everyone in the zine community. Musea 14:29, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
- Tom, the Deletion discussion can be found here: http://zinewiki.com/index.php?title=ZineWiki:Deletion_Policy_discussion Feel free to contribute, thanks. Alan Fall of Autumn 14:38, 2 October 2006 (EDT)
- Tom, I'm trying to be fair. It think it's important to outline clear guidelines and criteria to apply to every article and not focus on this specific one. Like I've said repeatedly, I was not the first person to object to this specific article, I did not know it was written by you, and you've still never explained how it's association with the ULA or why that should matter. You're bringing up a false issue to create drama, rather than be fair and logical. Think about the greater issue of posting book reviews to the ZineWiki. Step back from this specific article and look at the larger issue. Divorce the conversation of you, the ULA, me or this listing. Do you think it's appropriate to add full articles for bands, music, books, magazines, events, and retail stores that have no direct zine-related content? That's the issue at hand. And as Alan stated, we're having a discussion about it over at:
http://zinewiki.com/index.php?title=ZineWiki:Deletion_Policy_discussion dan10things 14:52, 2 October 2006 (EDT)