The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
Hello xkcd, and
welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing!
Tuspm(
C |
@)20:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I added a line to the xkcd.com "about" page
[1] that mostly answers this. It doesn't mean anything, it's just a string of letters to refer to a particular comic. Except when I use it as a username, in which case it refers to me.
xkcd06:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)xkcdreply
Thanks
I just found your comic (curse you, Boing Boing) and am really enjoying it. Thanks! (Even if it all is "patently made up". Heh. Nowadays nobody believes you work for NASA until you're arrested and found to be carrying pepper spray and a diaper.) Anyway, I should be emailing you to say I like the comic instead of pestering you here, but I thought I'd come across as ever so much more impressive in my Wikipedia persona than as some random emailer. Yeah, didn't work, huh? (My favorite comic so far: mixing curse levels. I'm going to start trying it.) —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk)
04:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
COI, other issues.
I'm a big fan of your comic and some of your other work, but I thought it might be a good idea to point out our
policy on conflicts of interests in regard to editing stuff related to you. Also, (Striking out earlier, since I see that you've seen that already). I'm attemping to improve the XKCD article and better source things. In that regard, by any chance do you know what
reliable sources have mentioned or discussed the comic? Thanks.
JoshuaZ19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks -- I hadn't actually seen that conflict-of-interest link. I saw some things earlier suggesting that editing articles about yourself was okay as long as you were careful, but I had the feeling that it wasn't good form and eventually decided to stop it completely, putting the note at the top of the xkcd talk page to let people know.
As for reliable sources, there's the Red Hat interview with me linked on the xkcd page, as well as an interview in the February 2007 issue of
Physics World (not currently available online) and another at Comixpedia
[2]. I'll be giving a talk at MIT in a week or so, and I'm told it will also be available online, so that's another type of source. But then, what's the difference between what I say there and what I say in my blog? And how does that compare to what I say in an interview? It's all pretty tricky. I think maybe things I say shouldn't be counted as a primary source unless I write on cracked and yellowed parchment. That would seem a little more fitting. :) --
xkcd20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)xkcdreply
Per
Wikipedia notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in
reliable sources that are
independent of the subject. Your interview comments, talk at MIT, and blog are not "independent" of the subject (you and your blog). However, the interviewer's comments in your interview generally can be used (assuming that the interviewer is independent of you, such as he's not your brother or someone who works for you). In the case of people who publicly express their opinion (such as you through your blog), your interview comments, talk at MIT, and blog may be fair game to some extent when placed under a biography section such as
Philosophical and/or political views. It usually is better to cite some independent person's statements regarding the topic's Philosophical and/or political views, but sometimes it's necessary to go directly to the source to avoid ... uh ... mischaracterization and
WP:BLP problems. Your interview comments, talk at MIT, and blog can be used as gap fillers for factual information that is very likely to be true, unlikely to be disputed, and not yet available anywhere else. The above are more rules of thumb that I use to develop articles. Policy and guidelines control over these rules of thumb, of course. -- Jreferee(
Talk)15:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Notability
Do you think your webcomic is notable enough to be included in
this article? You're either the best person or the worst person to answer this question, and I can't decide.
On a side note, are webcomics all italized nowadays? If that's the case you might want to do so on your user page, unless you like it that way; I never like messing with other people's pages.
I'm doing the fangirl thing, and, like another before me, felt doing it via Wikipedia would give me a certain cachet. Your comic is awesome. </fangirl>
I also wanted to ask if your whiteboard Wikipedia picture is also released under the same CC license as your work -- I'd very much like to use it on my userpage. You can respond here or on my
talk page. If you do the latter, I will be forced to make a separate archive containing only talk page comments from
notable webcomic artists. ... you should really do the latter. Cheers! --
Merope01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)reply
His work is available under a nc only license...which isn't considered "free enough" for wikipedia. -
N21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Also, I suspect that comic would be used widely withing Wikipedia if it were free content as it captures Wikipedia pretty well. It doesn't matter what the guy says, but do it without a citation and you'll receive a Wikipedia protester. -- Jreferee(
Talk)15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi Randal. I uploaded
Image:Wikipedian protester.png a few weeks back (after it was deleted for not having a fair use rationale). Just now, I found it the image is also at
Image:Wikiprotest.png, licenced as CC-BY. But I cannot verify that you lincenced it as such. I've asked
User:Mike33 to send me a copy of your email he said you sent him, but I would much prefer if you edited
Image:Wikipedian protester.png to change the licence (if you do indeed want to licence that particular comic as CC-BY). —
Edokter •
Talk • 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The image has been moved to Wikimedia Commons but currently, there's no verifiable record of the image having been relicensed. (Links are dead, and no proof exists.) I think this might be a problem. (Mike33 should have filed an OTRS report... Maybe you can do it instead?) --Kjoonlee19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I feel like I've already fielded requests on this particular image elsewhere in the three years since this debate, so the issue has probably been resolved. In case I haven't: yes—I am willing to release comic #285 under CC-BY-SA, so Wikipedia can use it. Sorry for any trouble! --
xkcd (
talk)
13:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Speaking of which, because I quoted the strip simply as "446", it made me think to go back and look up which comic happened to be #404. Nice. Very fitting. :) --
Stéphane Charette (
talk)
05:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
It's not his fault people go and do that... though on
Foreplay I did feel a tooltip or something asking to not vandalize might have been nice, though it might detract from the humor of it all somewhat. Personally, I'd give him points for reminding people just how ridiculous "in popular culture" sections can get...
CCG(
T-
C)15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
We would appreciate it if you put a stop to this nonsense. I love your comic, Randall, but you're basically commanding an army of fans akin to 4chan. The article didn't exist when you made the comic, and now your fans are flooding in to try and get it created and re-created.
ALInomnom13:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Right. One group consists of socially-stunted children who get excited about hearing words and memes that they can use to garner attention and praise from their peers, and act as a nuisance to Wikipedia in general. The other is 4chan.
90.219.166.214 (
talk)
17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)reply
(Heh.) I don't mean in terms of content. Of the two, at least xkcd fans are more civil and speak common English. Thank the gods for that.
ALInomnom17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)reply
And some of the fans are prolific and useful contributors to Wikipedia. *cough, cough*. I for one cannot believe the situation actually led to that enormous talk page. It is both funny and disturbing; but so the internet is. かんぱい!
Scapler (
talk)
17:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The difference is that Anonymous does whatever it feels like, while xkcd fans are more like a missile system guided by the button presses of the seeing-eye dog of a whimsical fisherman. --
74.72.121.211 (
talk)
03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)reply
How is it his fault? He didn't tell people to vandalize Wikipedia. He just wrote the comic. It's not his fault that a bunch of people are idiots. What is he supposed to do, never mention Wikipedia on his site? That would deprive him of half his material.
129.97.34.69 (
talk)
15:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Man, if I'd known my deleting and protecting the non-article would have generated so much fuss, I would have hacked the whitepages and called you to get your ass out of bed and watch the fun. :D Maybe next time give us a head's up when you're gonna poke fun at us. ;) - Writing on behalf of the non-existant Wikigods...
UtherSRG(talk)04:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, this is sorta like Stephanie Meyer destroying /b/ by featuring it in her books and thus filling it with her goth fans - except instead it's you destroying Wikipedia by featuring it in a cartoon and thus filling it full of xk/b/tards. And we didn't even ask you to show us your tits.
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (
talk)
18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)reply
1) Ideas and words that people come up with are rarely original, there's always a chance someone has thought of it before them. 2) You did not pursue copyright of the word. 3) You are not losing anything because Munroe used it in his comic. 4) Any legal action would be ridiculous. 5)
Wikipedia:No legal threats means exactly how it reads, and the consequence for violating it is an
instant block until the threat is withdrawn.
ALInomnom15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)reply
If you don't believe that I am the true creator of "malamanteau," kindly provide a citation for "malamanteau" that predates July 17, 2007. If you cannot do so, then it is clear that "malamanteau" is my intellectual property. Randall's dishonest claims about its origins are harming the prospects of my upcoming "malamanteau" business ventures, including a planned TV series and a line of women's fragrances. If you have never invented a popular new word, you can't understand the craftsmanship and labor that it involves and should reserve comment.
76.99.24.196 (
talk)
20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I'll happily grant you possession of the word and the accompanying Talk page clusterfuck. As I said in a couple places, there was one hit for the word when I did the comic (yours), which I found after posting and which didn't define it the same way. But I'd be happy to give you credit for coming up with the word before I did (I didn't even mean to invent a word), especially if it means you have to argue about the word's inclusion in Wikipedia. Let's work out an agreement. Can we have your people meet with my people, and then get them to fight to the death in some kind of a cage? I think that would be awesome, as my people are pretty scrappy and I assume yours have been training since at least July 2007.--
xkcd (
talk)
20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I would gladly accept your challenge Mr. Munroe, but you must realize that it is a foolhardy one, as your leopard style will surely be no match for my crane style. However, I am feeling charitable today -- if you'd like a legitimate piece of the burgeoning "malamanteau" industry rather than the misbegotten share you currently hold, I might be persuaded to offer you an executive producer credit on the "malamanteau" feature film currently in pre-production. I received word this morning that Ridley Scott has committed to the project. That, however, is the limit of my generosity, and I would advise you not to test me further.
76.99.24.196 (
talk)
20:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)reply
To the anon claiming that a single word is his intellectual property: I suggest you learn a little something about
United States copyright law. It is true that one does not have to apply for copyright in order to obtain it; however, it is also true that single words or short phrases are rarely eligible for copyright protection. Slogans and words used by companies are covered by
trademark law, which is rather different from copyright law, as it DOES have to be applied for. In short, your use of a single word is ineligible for copyright, sorry. But don't take my word for it: the
United States Copyright Office itself says it all
here: title 17 of the US Code defines what is copyrightable, and single words fall decidedly outside of the criteria. かんぱい!
Scapler (
talk)
04:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Hello Randall, love your comic, and greatly appreciate that it's Creative Commons licenced. A year ago I resolved to concentrate on improving a psychology article. My choice of
confirmation bias was influenced by seeing you list it as an interesting topic. The article's improved a long way and it'll be the main page Featured Article tomorrow. Hope it gives you some nourishing brain-food. Thanks again for making me and my friends laugh so many times.
MartinPoulter (
talk)
12:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, I'd rather have it uploaded here for its informativeness and helpfulness in explaining why sources should be cited, and cited carefully. Though that people find it amusing is a nice bonus.
Keφr (
talk)
17:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)reply
At [
[3]] you claim that the orchids only pollinator is extinct and that the flower is in extinction debt. Do you have sources to back this up, since there is plenty of evidence that you're entirely wrong.
Ego White Tray (
talk)
19:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Invisible Formatting
Dear Randall,
thank you for all your work and passion on xkcd. I would like to ask you to set
Invisible Formatting (2109) under cc-by, cc-by-sa, or GFDL to use it here? Id like to use it also on
Wikis in Organisationen (de), but "Invisible Formatting" is a problem on all wikis and WYSIWYG editors. thank you in advance
VanGore (
talk)
18:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Free Speech 1357
Hello,
I was wondering whether
https://xkcd.com/1357/ was freely licensed - I can't find it in Commons, so I assume not. Could you make it so? It must be in big demand these days.
Thank you for your exceptional artistic and scientific output! I'm a long-time fan, and always love seeing your work in the wild :)
Yitz (
talk)
00:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Licensing 'xkcd no. 2347 Dependency' under CC-BY-SA or similar
Hi @
Xkcd. Your comic
'xkcd no. 2347 Dependency' has been mentioned by many reliable sources as capturing the essence of the fiasco surrounding the
XZ Utils backdoor. I have added an external link to it with
this edit on 2024-04-12 (2 months ago), and the change appears to be stable.
I think that the XZ Utils backdoor article could benefit from featuring your comic directly in the page. Could you kindly please consider licensing this particular individual comic with a Wikimedia Commons compatible license, such as
CC-BY-SA (or similar, see
Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses) so that we may upload it to Commons and feature it in this article? Thank you.
Melmann22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply