Talk:Microcosm Publishing

From ZineWiki
Revision as of 17:28, 19 February 2012 by InvisibleFriend (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

This article was featured on the front page of ZineWiki, the month of January 2008! dan10things 14:44, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. Sean says... Microcosm/Joe Biel have done a fantastic job doing what they've done. Period. But, the central problem i have with them & the problem i had with Lookout, Mordam & the later incarnation of Factsheet 5 is the homogenization of the zine world. The problem with the idea of zine culture & all that, is that zines are just like books or records or comics or whatever. & while the tendency has been towards the creation of geeked out convention culture surrounding these things (Portland Zine Symposium being a big culprit for the zine world), they are just objects for disseminating ideas & images & whatever, not specific ideas. You should have nothing more in common with the audience of zines as you would people walking down the street. Zine creators are going to be somewhat similar, just as book writers are or comic artists are or movie makers are. It takes a certain kind of mind to want to make something in a certain format. However, the audience is more what i'm speaking too. Anyhow, the reason i present this in the zikewiki is that i think it is an important issue, & one that most zine writers/distributors should think about. --Goblin 20:18, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Zinewiki is meant to be an encyclopedia documenting the zine world, it's attempt is to be objective. While you are more than entitled to your opinion, this is not really a place for discussing issues or telling people what they "should think about." Zinewiki is no, we don't review zines or provide our personal opinions of them, the discussion space is for discussing the facts of an entry, rather than airing personal critiques of zines, zinesters or projects. I'd suggest a better forum for discussion might be alt.zines, the livejournal zine discussion groups or the yahoo zine groups. I for one would enjoy the argument... but not here please. Thanks. dan10things 02:23, 27 November 2007 (EST)
you got it. makes sense to me! --Goblin 13:01, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Should some of the heavy revisions made to this page be restored? Among the removals: a lengthy list of projects produced by Microcosm, historical details, links to articles about Microcosm (providing sources to historical information), mentions of former staff (which includes some well-known people in the zine community), Microcosm's logo, and all the categories. I'm not sure how removing this content improves the article. I am restoring the category listings; I'd like to hear some feedback on the other content. Jerianne 19:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know that much about it, but just from the little I do know, it seems some people are using the article for personal reasons. My suggestion is to either change the article back to a more neutral overview, or for someone who is well informed about this company to rewrite it.InvisibleFriend 01:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)