Shit Encyclopedia Dramatica-tier garbage

It's hard to say something like a webcomic bad when it's just your opinion

By the way, where's you find that gif

>>78107217
When it started out, the writing and humor of the articles was actually pretty funny.

>>78107237
is exactly right about it nowadays, though.

ive read every single post. theyre a necessary evil of the internet

they think a lot of satirical webcomics are genuine

Haven't seen it in a few years, but they seem to be in line with /co/ about most shitty webcomics. Though I predict that, like all wiki pages, they will run out of material and start to add comics that don't deserve to be there, if they haven't already.

>>78107283
>>is exactly right about it nowadays, though.

Wat

>>78107217
written by complete memers who just save all the shit posted on here and turned into "articles"

They don't like what we don't like.
So there's that.

It seems that the big shitters like CAD are spot on, but they are usually written by the owners of the site.
I found some articles that were truly personal problems with the stuff. Like on the Romantically Apocalyptic one the dude tries to devalue the art saying it's not drawn and it's just filtered photoshop images taken from Google, when in truth the guys go to deep lengths to shoot from abandoned stuff, they have to photograph all the character in their positions for each panel, they never use copypaste, and it's all really well done.
And then claim that the author lies saying he paints them, when on the site there's literally process pics of how he does the art. The article's author's proof for this is a screenshot of a DeviantArt comment of someone asking "was this made with a mouse" and the webcomic author replying "yes", and that was it.

>>78107282

>>78107553
>>78107282
Sorry, forgot to answer. I found it randomly on another chan.

>>78107217
i know this word is tossed around, but
autism

>>78107359
>run out of shit webcomics
ha

>>78107217
Nothing will ever replace Solomon's.

>>78113221
this but they also seem to just take any decent webcomic and put it in there if it's boring

While some of the most shitty webcomics deserve to be there, they also shit on many webcomics that are average or even good. They take the 5 worst single strips from a comic and then say that the whole comic is like that. They also spread lies and rumors about the webcomic creators. So better stay away from that ED-tier wiki.

>>78107217
It's overly critical of comics which are mostly good.

>>78118568
I should clarify. I'm not saying that most of the comics on there are good; I'm saying that some of them are mostly good.

They act like every crappy comic is the "Worst thing ever"

They try to judge porno comics on their plots and writing, as if that matters.

They exaggerate the flaws in comics beyond all reason.

Depending on who wrote the article they can drift into "I AM VERY SMART" territory, and they lack the ability to distinguish between objective and subjective issues with a comic.

That said, most of the comics really do suck, and the articles are amusing enough. So... decent enough for a read, but don't treat them like gospel.

Also what >>78115173
said.

too leftist alot of the time but oddguy saves it