So the Bad Webcomic Wiki yet lives. Project2nd, Books Dont Work Here, and The History Of Middle Earth (Chibi Edition) are some recent entries.
"Monsters are tragic beings. They are born too tall, too strong, too heavy. They are not evil by choice. That is their tragedy."Psst, double post.
It's nice to see that the utter filth that is US Angel Corps has a review. Honestly, even though Sonichu is demonstrably worse, I think that this comic is the one that deserves the most vitriol. To think that a monster like David Cheung actually has fans.
"Monsters are tragic beings. They are born too tall, too strong, too heavy. They are not evil by choice. That is their tragedy."I'll be a frank: after going through virtually every review on the site, I'm not a fan of Bad Webcomics Wiki! format at all. There are web comics on there that certainly deserve to be lambasted, but there are also comics up there that...frankly don't make sense to me being there. They might not be GOOD, but they aren't BAD by any stretch of the word.
Further, there's no guidelines to the reviews, which means they tend to break down into rather unpleasant and nasty attacks with no citation for the criticism. Some of the reviews seem specifically designed to provoke the artists into arguments. Which comes to another flaw I find about the review method: the in-depth paragraphs on the artists themselves.
There are nasty people who make art, and there are nasty people who make web comics. That being said, they aren't the ones on trial: their art is. It is important, in a review, to separate the artist from the product, and judge the product as existing on its own. Attacking the artist (however deserved it may be) simply dilutes the point of the review, and makes it seem petty.
All in all, it's a mess: some well-written and organized reviews, some awful reviews, and a lot of mediocre ones. I think that a site like the Bad Webcomics Wiki! could be a really good clearinghouse and arbiter of what does and does not define a good web-comic, but as it stands right now...too many of the reviews are just petty, and it feels like there's no standards or guidelines for how the reviews themselves. I'm sure there are, but if so, they are either very loose or largely ignored.
I'm all for a wiki like that, and hope to see what it grows into. Right now, though...it's just a beating.
Most ridiculous criticism I've seen on that terrible excuse for a wiki: Covert pro-gay propaganda.
Most petty: Violates the Rule of Three.
edited 25th Apr '14 7:27:29 PM by Eagal
The strangest thing I see is that there seems to be an objection to any author expressing a political or social view. Now, I get why someone would criticize a bad view (like those right wing propaganda comics that veer into really insane territory) or criticize a poorly researched view (like Sinfest's distressing tendency to ignore current feminist theory) but a lot of them seem to say that the webcomic creators shouldn't be expressing these thoughts AT ALL in their own comics.
It's like, where else are you going to express yourself if not in a comic you created and that you produce essentially for free? It's like some of these reviewers think that you should never, ever, express any sort of opinion that's political or social in spaces that are essentially your property. And that's just moronic.
Is it just me, or are their attacks on Goblins kinda...I dunno, most of the review seems to be attacking Tarol Hunt rather than the comic, and some of it's kinda tasteless commentary on him having mental problems, which kind of makes them look like assholes now that it turns out he actually does have real problems.
It's a very mixed bag.
I generally am not a fan of reviews that go for the throat rather than attempt to give salient critique save when I feel that either the subject in question really has it coming or the person writing the review really makes a good argument against it point by point. As often as not, the reviews that I have seen there seem to just be petty rants about mockable behaviour from the creators of mediocre or flawed but readable comics rather than the righteous take-downs of truly abysmal work that I would expect and prefer. I could deal with it if the reviews of the less atrocious strips were more analytical and thoughtful, but they generally just aren't.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.I'm not a fan of that wiki, either.
As a few people pointed out, some reviews tend to go for the throat instead of giving an objective viewpoint on it. I could easily tell that, while it may not be true for all reviewers there, some are incredibly petty douchebags that need a swift kick to the nuts.
For example, when Christian Weston Chandler's house burned down, whoever was in charge of their facebook page started to laugh about it. A troll even pointed out that it was going too far, and they laughed about it some more. They even added Sandra And Woo to their "Douchebags you should avoid" list because they once quietly re-directed some links to their strips without raising a fuss about it. After seeing things like that happening, I was pretty much turned off.
I think John Solomon (the guy that the Wiki idolized once upon a time) once chewed them out too, even he doesn't like the Bad Webcomics Wiki. If they didn't make some of the articles like they have something personal against the authors, I'd be able to take it much more seriously. As is, I'd much rather watch the Webcomic Relief show on Youtube if I wanted better reviews on webcomics. That dude at least can put something forward without making himself look like an asshole.
If there are three people on this site that I would read an article from, they would be oddguy, Dr Shaym, and The Luigiian.
Sorry for the necropost, but... there's been a new development and I'm wondering if anyone knows anything about it.
Someone's been vandalizing the wiki, replacing the titles and articles with random gibberish
, the N word
, and most troublingly, a ton of references to someone named Cyn
. Among the gibberish I've seen phrases like, "ASK ODDGUY AND CYN," and, "ODDGUY MAKES CYN SCARED FOR HER LIFE," and, "ODDGUY THREATENED CYN'S MOTHER."
Now, I know who Oddguy is. He's the guy who runs the wiki. But who the hell is Cyn?
No beer?! But if there's no beer, then there's no beef or beans!Just read this review
for a comic called "Assigned Male". The stats at the top of the page use "social justice" as a disparaging term, so I knew it would be an adventure to slog through. but I gave it my best shot.
Highlights include:
- The commentator spends a page or two being annoyed that an 11 year old is talking like an adult on occasion. Maybe it is a bit silly, but i seem to remember Ozy and Millie getting a pass for this sort of thing.
- The first comic features the protagonist Stephie's mother getting a bit more defensive than is necessary when the nurse at the doctor's office questions why her daughter's medical ID has her legal name as Stephen. When she explains that the child has a "boy's body", Stephie gets upset, insisting that since she is a girl, her body must be a girl's body. This leads to a rant from the commentator about how the mother is putting her daughter's health at risk so as not to hurt her feelings. Because...apparently there's a sore throat medicine that causes boys who take it to explode, I guess.
- Did you know that heteronormativity isn't a real word? My autocorrect feature doesn't, but the commentator does. Except a ten second Google search showed an Oxford dictionary definition for "heteronormative". Maybe they used bing instead.
- They insist on labeling a trans male character in a relationship with another man "a heterosexual woman who identifies as a man" because...apparently if gender expression is a choice, then sexual orientation is too? I can feel myself getting dumber as I type this, so I'm gonna stop here.
- Oh, and the commentator feels the need to blurt out "white people experience racism too" at one point. I'm not saying this is untrue, but I've rarely seen it put in a way that didn't make me cringe, and this is no exception.
And just in case you thought the commentator might have some beef with trans people, they tell us about a trans friend who read page one and decided the main character was too "militant". So trans community, don't like this comic because one of your kind didn't care for the first page.
edited 22nd Mar '15 8:09:16 AM by Morgikit
I remember finding this site some time ago, but I was recently introduced to it after finding it's article on The Wotch. Made a lot of really good points against it, and this is coming from someone who thinks The Wotch isn't as bad as everyone else makes it out to be.
So far, I haven't found the articles to be too bad. Granted, I think most of the really bad ones were lost with the transition, but the ones on the BWW make some decent points, even if they do tend to dip into hyperbole a bit too much. That said, what I truly find Head Desk worthy, something that I haven't seen mentioned here, is the Reactions pages, which are so on their high horse and up their own ass.
In regards to Ozy and Millie, I found the article, and it only mentions that their vocabulary is a little high for their ages. Assigned Male, meanwhile, has an 11-year-old that acts nothing like an 11-year-old and is praised for it.
In regards to medicine, it does dip a little overboard, but to be fair, there have been studies as to how medicine affects men and women differently. And I think that makes sense; after all, there are biological differences between genders. And that's a point that the article makes a lot, and is something that the webcomic in question seems desperate to ignore.
The other points you made are fine, but at the same time I generally agree with the article. The comic just seems both extremely preachy and not all that smart as to what it's preaching.
edited 23rd Mar '15 10:38:36 AM by Watchtower
I lost my respect for that wiki after reading the "review" of Two Kinds. I'm not saying this webcomic is great, but the points made were basically :
- There are Fantasy Counterpart Cultures, therefore it's racist.
- It's a furry webcomic that dares have fanservice (ewww, gross !)
- The author doesn't interact much with his audience, so we'll just assume he's a Giant Douche (TM).
The only point I agree with is the Unfortunate Implication of Happiness in Slavery. Besides that... Accentuate the Negative indeed. And not the funny kind.
edited 2nd Apr '15 11:03:53 AM by Aetol
Worldbuilding is fun, writing is a choreI've been able to read through more of the wiki, and while I can still overall agree with the articles you can really see the differences between writers. It's not enough for me to tell which one is which from the style, but it's still apparent that some are more willing to dive to Accentuate the Negative than others.
The one article that particularly annoyed me was the one for Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi. There's a lot of problems with the comic, but Massive Multiplayer Crossover is not one of them. Hell, Darker and Edgier alone isn't a problem, so much as Bleedman cranking it Up To Eleven with no sign of slowing down.
As different as the writers are, one of the things they seem to share is zero/little tolerance for Fanservice. If a woman shows any skin, expect them to point it out, and always as a criticism. The Apple Geeks review in particular seems to define "cheesecake" as "any attractive woman".
Reclusive Artist and manga-based art styles also seem to be common red flags; I remember one article calling the latter "an excuse to be lazy", which is just wrong on so many levels.
If this site removed the "web" in their title, literally every comic book, even the best, would get a negative review on that site. Because that what the site is like to me. Their standards are so high, I do not know a single webcomic (or anything) the website likes. They will pick apart every single detail and the webcomic is automatically crap. If they were making fun of these comics, but in a more "it's stupid but enjoyable" way, then the website would be more tolerable. Nostalgia Critic has reviewed stuff he likes and while he did point out some flaws, and some scenes that he wouldn't resist making fun of, he can still find some good jokes.
Though I'm not saying some webcomics don't deserve the bashing the website gave them.
edited 9th Jun '15 7:07:21 PM by DokemonStudios

Yeah, the reviewer's treatment of transgender issues is kind of... questionable in and of itself. Disrespecting what someone wants to be called is just deliberately mocking someone. Mind you I know nothing about either author in question besides what's in the review. But disrespecting someone's stated gender identity seems a poor thing to include in a comic review. I mean like, sure mention the issue as it apparently has some bearing on the subject matter, but don't go dissing on someone by saying "they're doing you a favor by not associating blah blah blah".