people editing out genuine dubstep artists on wiki

[Pistonsbeneath]

i know i know it doesn't really matter but it pisses me off

especially when shit wobble is allowed as well as random people that haven't even put anything out!

broken note & lone wolf appear to have been taken off & god knows who else....ffs

[Pada]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_(DJ)

there is not a Mala page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coki

Coki Directs to Digital Mystikz

[yong]

I've been added and removed and added and removed for ages now. It messes with my self-esteem.


I didn't add myself originally for the record.

[86.]

Mala used to direct to digital mystikz up until recently if I recall correctly.

that's lame...people are trying to police which dubstep artists go onto wiki

what you can do is delete all the other no-names and shit....just outta spite

[Pistonsbeneath]

Mala used to direct to digital mystikz up until recently if I recall correctly.

that's lame...people are trying to police which dubstep artists go onto wiki

what you can do is delete all the other no-names and shit....just outta spite

probably a good idea to check discogs to see if they have a release out before you delete 'no-names'

[86.]

Mala used to direct to digital mystikz up until recently if I recall correctly.

that's lame...people are trying to police which dubstep artists go onto wiki

what you can do is delete all the other no-names and shit....just outta spite

probably a good idea to check discogs to see if they have a release out before you delete 'no-names'

lol of course. but also, anybody can add shit to discogs.


Mr. Johnson the Producer - I Got Filthty Basslines - released in 2008..... can be on there

[Pistonsbeneath]

Mala used to direct to digital mystikz up until recently if I recall correctly.

that's lame...people are trying to police which dubstep artists go onto wiki

what you can do is delete all the other no-names and shit....just outta spite

probably a good idea to check discogs to see if they have a release out before you delete 'no-names'

lol of course. but also, anybody can add shit to discogs.


Mr. Johnson the Producer - I Got Filthty Basslines - released in 2008..... can be on there

they need to validate a release man

[slothrop]

Wikipedia was never meant to include everything that exists, though. I mean, my toenail clippings are undeniably real but I don't really think they need a wikipedia page. Which is why wikipedia has fairly strict 'notability' criteria - IIRC it's basically that the some fairly established media have to have registered your existence. It's not ideal, because a lot of stuff is interesting that isn't picked up by the mainstream media, but it does stop the whole thing getting bombarded by every no name indie band and DJ and mathematician and jobbing actor and cabaret singer and pub and shop and jazz band and restaurant and minicab firm who think that they ought to have one of these 'wikipedia page' things.

It sucks for a lot of specific cases - especially youth-culturey things that tend to be validated by more niche media or blogs - but it keeps the whole thing sane in the long run.

Realistically, I'd expect maybe a dozen or so dubstep people to appear in wikipedia - Mystikz, Benga, Skream, Rusko, Kode 9, that sort of level.

[86.]

Mala used to direct to digital mystikz up until recently if I recall correctly.

that's lame...people are trying to police which dubstep artists go onto wiki

what you can do is delete all the other no-names and shit....just outta spite

probably a good idea to check discogs to see if they have a release out before you delete 'no-names'

lol of course. but also, anybody can add shit to discogs.


Mr. Johnson the Producer - I Got Filthty Basslines - released in 2008..... can be on there

they need to validate a release man

I can't remember exactly but isn't the "validation" thing very basic a.k.a a joke?

Cuz I put out a free EP awhile ago and all I was asked for was an email and a myspace. (yes I entered myself of Discogs...leave me alone ) I thought I was gonna get rejected but to my surprise it's on there.


not that it matters of course, just saying

[firky]

I imagine that the mods and admin on wiki are amongst the saddest bastards on the internet.

Think about it, these people aren't interested in things like dubstep. Their thrills are academia + IT + internet + voluntarily working for a website and quite probably sexually graphic manga cartoons of children being raped by a fox-octopus.

[seckle]

understand what the site is really trying to do. its not a promotional tool. things get edited out because they're not entered in according to the basic rules. read these...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionis ... _Wikipedia

remember that 3/4 of the world cannot afford or don't have access to university education, but nearly all parts of the world have the internet in some form today. then think about wikipedia from that standpoint.

[seckle]

"self-published internet pages" are not sources. by their rules a "self published" blog post, isn't encyclopedic. its an opinion. having something cross checked by a 2nd party, such as an editor at a magazine or an editor of a website, is usable by wiki rules. its not that hard to understand.

[wormcode]

Wiki sucks anyway. Take everything you read on there with a grain of salt, and always use the actual sources at the bottom. If there's none I wouldn't trust it. It could have been great, but there's too many inaccuracies and flat out lies on it because anyone can add anything they want. Yeah articles can be moderated, but that's a lot of moderating to do for free..

[surface_tension]

"self-published internet pages" are not sources. by their rules a "self published" blog post, isn't encyclopedic. its an opinion. having something cross checked by a 2nd party, such as an editor at a magazine or an editor of a website, is usable by wiki rules. its not that hard to understand.

A discogs link is a source for a Dubstep artist. End of discussion.

Put a release on discogs that has some faulty information and give it a day. Go back. Bye Bye release. I'd say that is a far better way. Also, on Wiki before they just take it down it will say for a LONG time "citation needed" and even then won't be taken down unless some smug bastard makes it a point to take it down.

It's far more likely that someone who fancies themselves the authority(wonder who it is?) would be that smug bitch.

What is the basis for the claim that Mala is a dubstep artist? How do we prove it academically?

So Phaeleh should go up there then. He's by no means as famous, but he is a Dubstep artist. Prove me wrong.

[Whistla]

"self-published internet pages" are not sources. by their rules a "self published" blog post, isn't encyclopedic. its an opinion. having something cross checked by a 2nd party, such as an editor at a magazine or an editor of a website, is usable by wiki rules. its not that hard to understand.

the highlighted points are where i have a problem with wikipedia.
its totally based on opinion, and totally not on any kind of academic level.
eg. most of the quotes re. dubstep are from Blackdowns Pitchfork blog. Now fair enuff he has a lot of valid points on his blog/column. But in light of wiki's rules you could argue that Wonky and Ikonika and Rustie et al should have there own totally separate entry, as put simply "Martin talked about it in his personal article". Its all hot air.
Wiki should be open source or it should be extremely academic, like at least 5 articles cited per quote etc...

btw im not slating martin at all, im slating wiki and using him as an example as everyone seems to be quoting him in the dubstep wiki.

[Genevieve]

It's a notability thing. Yeah, Discogs is a source, but it doesn't say about how many fans the musician has (mostly), what the musician contributed and in what way and so on.

There's plenty of 'wrong' information Wikipedia that has better sources than 'true' information (according to Wikipedia, grindcore is a type of metal... etc). It sucks, but if something's more.

Wiki isn't about delivering the truth as much as it is about delivering knowledge. When the truth cannot be tested through a scientific process, it's about how many namedrops it gets. It's flawed, but without it, you'd get an elite of know-it-alls who can edit any page any way they want.

[SwordRaven]

The moderators on wikipedia are a bunch of tits, they delete things and change things purely to show they have the bigger internet-dick, check the talk pages about the dubstep artist lists and things I wouldn't be surprised if there's some dick measuring going on. Happened a lot about a book that had a page created about it, when the actual author popped in and said 'yeah I agree it's not ready for a page, go ahead and remove it' one actually said 'we should leave it on there just to mess with him!'

Such weirdness for what should be a really great site to get involved in.

[seckle]

A discogs link is a source for a Dubstep artist. End of discussion.

discogs functions as a listing site. its completely unverified, but can show that an artist is prolific. its not a "source" in the way that it can be used in making a statement about an artist, ie..."DJ xyz is the best house dj in america". that would be edited out straight away, and if it wasn't you should edited it out yourself.

Put a release on discogs that has some faulty information and give it a day. Go back. Bye Bye release. I'd say that is a far better way. Also, on Wiki before they just take it down it will say for a LONG time "citation needed" and even then won't be taken down unless some smug bastard makes it a point to take it down.

people that work on wiki are volunteers. they follow their interests. they don't have to act in a timely fashion. trying to take issue with wikipedia, based on you not being able to follow their simple guidelines makes who look ridiculous? you!

What is the basis for the claim that Mala is a dubstep artist? How do we prove it academically?

he has about 25 to 100 mentions in printed published magazines and online magazines. he's both notable, and can be verified dozens of times over in relation to dubstep as a genre.

So Phaeleh should go up there then. He's by no means as famous, but he is a Dubstep artist. Prove me wrong.

what makes him "notable"? has he got published press? published interviews? he's an artist signed to your label, and you're asking me to prove that he's a dubstep artist? i don't know the first thing about phaeleh, other than the fact that he's on your label, and i read a lot of the dubstep press. thats your first problem here. you want wikipedia to do the hard work for you. it doesn't work that way. but maybe that's how you think record label's are run. by feeling entitled to everything, but not wanting to put in the work to promote your artist using the normal networks. lol

[bandshell]

Seckle once again nailing it completely.

[seckle]

"self-published internet pages" are not sources. by their rules a "self published" blog post, isn't encyclopedic. its an opinion. having something cross checked by a 2nd party, such as an editor at a magazine or an editor of a website, is usable by wiki rules. its not that hard to understand.

the highlighted points are where i have a problem with wikipedia.
its totally based on opinion, and totally not on any kind of academic level.
eg. most of the quotes re. dubstep are from Blackdowns Pitchfork blog. Now fair enuff he has a lot of valid points on his blog/column. But in light of wiki's rules you could argue that Wonky and Ikonika and Rustie et al should have there own totally separate entry, as put simply "Martin talked about it in his personal article". Its all hot air.
Wiki should be open source or it should be extremely academic, like at least 5 articles cited per quote etc...

btw im not slating martin at all, im slating wiki and using him as an example as everyone seems to be quoting him in the dubstep wiki.

blackdown is published, and published on one of the top 5 music sites on the web. he's also published by tempa records as he wrote the "history of dubstep" booklet in their CD package. he's also one of the first three journalists that documented the sound from the early days. by wikipedia rules he's a "verifiable" source on several grounds. that doesn't make him "THE" source obviously, and he'd be the first to say that, but you cannot argue that he's got no basis to be used on wikipedia. nearly 90% of his written work is being read by an editor before its published on pitchfork.

i agree that it does get opinionated, and there's not one genre of music on that site that's not in constant upheaval, as everyone's opinion should be heard. this is where published sources have an enormous responsibility. the editor's of music magazines and sites, can either hurt or help depending on their editorial choices. in terms of defining a genre of music, they have the utmost responsibility, and thus the hardest job, because they cannot please everyone.

in the early days, the hardest part about this sound was getting it published anywhere, and even getting it reviewed. kode 9 , gutterbreakz, drumz of the south and blackdown were the primary people on it so, of course they become sources where things can be verified. it took me a long time to get my head around the wikipedia thinking, as it frustrated me too. especially the part about "original research" not being allowed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_research
its not the bible, its just a site where you can contribute your thinking and perspectives. and as i said earlier, the good that it does cannot be underestimated.