people editing out genuine dubstep artists on wiki

[Pistonsbeneath]

just to say i wasn't so much referring to the articles being taken down so much as the list of dubstep artists having some taken out that are genuine dubstep artists....i'd imagine that's someone that thinks they can speak for 'the scene' as opposed to a wiki mod...

i actually spent a good hour or so one evening a few months back going through my ipod and adding anybody with a release....it was annoying seeing ALL my hard work was for nothing...

there were tons missing...that's why i bothered...now i can see why...because dickheads that likeonly wobble or dickheads that like only deep decided they knew better...

i mean ffs pendulum have sold shitloads of albums but they don't as of yet have a dubstep release but they were on there a while back!

[Neurotik]

Are chase and status still on there as a gay couple?

[Pada]

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.

LOL!

[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.

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.

yeh i agree with you seckle.
my point i was trying to make is that its all with reference to Martins writing, hardly any other citations are given, which makes the whole thing read like his personal version of dubstep. which is a great read on his article/blog. but isnt necessarily a full rounded picture.
thats what i mean about "its all opinion"

[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.

yeh i agree with you seckle.
my point i was trying to make is that its all with reference to Martins writing, hardly any other citations are given, which makes the whole thing read like his personal version of dubstep. which is a great read on his article/blog. but isnt necessarily a full rounded picture.
thats what i mean about "its all opinion"

yeah man, it is what it is though. i mean, gutterbreakz used to be so important, because what wouldnt be on Martin's radar, would end up being on his. For those few years, we had great perspectives. as you remember, we'd go back and forth between blackdown and gutterbreakz when finding out about new tunes. for years there was very patchy journalism. its either written by people that do their research on this forum, and read a few older pieces in mags, and then bang out their own pieces, or its the people on it for the fashion only, and end up talking about la roux. i'm really trying to support bigup magazine and a few other bloggers now, because it only helps the evolution of the sound in the long term. unfortunately, the music industry still revolves around press.

martin, as he's been there from day, and still writes about it, is even more valuable a resource now than ever. i think people should be happy that he's spent as much time as he has, because without him and a few other's this scene would have no foundational press at all. i don't think its his personal page at all. many people are on there and have contributed. the problem is that many don't follow the basic contribution requirements, so straight away they get edited out. its not some ulterior motivation.

[danoldboy]

Wikipedia doesn't define what dubstep is or was. The history is there in the music.

[surface_tension]

Seckle...

...substantive dubstep rhythms... - FACT Magazine

http://www.factmagazine.co.uk/index.php ... &task=view

Not opinion magazine... FACT. Phaeleh is a Dubstep artist... of Substance... according to at least one notable publication, not a blog. Also, I find it hard to believe that you didn't know who Phaeleh was, yet knew that he was on my label, let alone knew of my label. What you mean, is that you knew, but didn't care because of whatever your bias is. Blackdown can't even run a fucking spell checker over his articles, so I question the validity of his articles as "news" or academic in some way. That being said, I'd still say that would be more than adequate proof(being listed in one of his articles) that one was a Dubstep artist... I guess FACT don't know shit though, I'll defer to your almighty knowledge.

I didn't even put Phaeleh on the list, someone else, not on his label did. I didn't ask you to prove, but rather DISPROVE his status as a notable Dubstep artist. Notable is in the eye of the beholder. If notable is the standard, anyone with a release could be notable. I certainly don't value your opinion of notable in this situation. Those with power are generally not want to give that power up. Case in point, Obama hasn't repealed the PATRIOT ACT or restored Habeas Corpus. Why would people with a stake in being considered the main players want to share the stage with smaller guys? They wouldn't. They don't. They won't.

I can accept that to an extent, but by your own fucking definition, he's legitimately deserving of being on the list of DUBSTEP ARTISTS. It doesn't say it's a list of NOTABLE Dubstep artists either, just Dubstep artists and it can be verified with release information.

And your bullshit about not knowing who he is, but knowing what label he is on, knowing that it's a Dubstep label... right. Whatever. Full of shit tbh.

Take a listen to his tunes in one of the multiple 10+ page threads of people bigging him up and get back to me.

[collige]

Seckle...

...substantive dubstep rhythms... - FACT Magazine

http://www.factmagazine.co.uk/index.php ... &task=view

Not opinion magazine... FACT. Phaeleh is a Dubstep artist... of Substance... according to at least one notable publication, not a blog. Also, I find it hard to believe that you didn't know who Phaeleh was, yet knew that he was on my label, let alone knew of my label. What you mean, is that you knew, but didn't care because of whatever your bias is. Blackdown can't even run a fucking spell checker over his articles, so I question the validity of his articles as "news" or academic in some way. That being said, I'd still say that would be more than adequate proof(being listed in one of his articles) that one was a Dubstep artist... I guess FACT don't know shit though, I'll defer to your almighty knowledge.

I didn't even put Phaeleh on the list, someone else, not on his label did. I didn't ask you to prove, but rather DISPROVE his status as a notable Dubstep artist. Notable is in the eye of the beholder. If notable is the standard, anyone with a release could be notable. I certainly don't value your opinion of notable in this situation. Those with power are generally not want to give that power up. Case in point, Obama hasn't repealed the PATRIOT ACT or restored Habeas Corpus. Why would people with a stake in being considered the main players want to share the stage with smaller guys? They wouldn't. They don't. They won't.

I can accept that to an extent, but by your own fucking definition, he's legitimately deserving of being on the list of DUBSTEP ARTISTS. It doesn't say it's a list of NOTABLE Dubstep artists either, just Dubstep artists and it can be verified with release information.

And your bullshit about not knowing who he is, but knowing what label he is on, knowing that it's a Dubstep label... right. Whatever. Full of shit tbh.

Take a listen to his tunes in one of the multiple 10+ page threads of people bigging him up and get back to me.

tbh I generally recall his nsme from you bigging him up and you having an ad for his release on your label in your sig.

[surface_tension]

tbh I generally recall his nsme from you bigging him up and you having an ad for his release on your label in your sig.

Just in case anyone wonders why I always namedrop our artists every chance I get.

[seckle]

Seckle...

...substantive dubstep rhythms... - FACT Magazine

http://www.factmagazine.co.uk/index.php ... &task=view

Not opinion magazine... FACT. Phaeleh is a Dubstep artist... of Substance... according to at least one notable publication, not a blog. Also, I find it hard to believe that you didn't know who Phaeleh was, yet knew that he was on my label, let alone knew of my label. What you mean, is that you knew, but didn't care because of whatever your bias is. Blackdown can't even run a fucking spell checker over his articles, so I question the validity of his articles as "news" or academic in some way. That being said, I'd still say that would be more than adequate proof(being listed in one of his articles) that one was a Dubstep artist... I guess FACT don't know shit though, I'll defer to your almighty knowledge.

I didn't even put Phaeleh on the list, someone else, not on his label did. I didn't ask you to prove, but rather DISPROVE his status as a notable Dubstep artist. Notable is in the eye of the beholder. If notable is the standard, anyone with a release could be notable. I certainly don't value your opinion of notable in this situation. Those with power are generally not want to give that power up. Case in point, Obama hasn't repealed the PATRIOT ACT or restored Habeas Corpus. Why would people with a stake in being considered the main players want to share the stage with smaller guys? They wouldn't. They don't. They won't.

I can accept that to an extent, but by your own fucking definition, he's legitimately deserving of being on the list of DUBSTEP ARTISTS. It doesn't say it's a list of NOTABLE Dubstep artists either, just Dubstep artists and it can be verified with release information.

And your bullshit about not knowing who he is, but knowing what label he is on, knowing that it's a Dubstep label... right. Whatever. Full of shit tbh.

Take a listen to his tunes in one of the multiple 10+ page threads of people bigging him up and get back to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ty_(music)
read that, and then do whatever you want to do with your label and artists in regards to wikipedia. you're a smart guy, so don't waste your time telling the internet about your labels problems, when you could be spending that time promoting releases.

[DRTY]

Wikipedia - Loosely based on fact

[parson]

i'm not bitter about it at all but since it has come up, i've been deleted from wiki multiple times and i fit the criteria for being included

let's just admit that it is politics and move on

[seckle]

we're at a dire point in the underground, when artists are more worried about getting onto wikipedia, than making their own buzz by letting the music do the talking first. this is a competitive genre now.

[the acid never lies]

out of the corner of my eye I read the thread title as 'pedophile eats out dubstep artist"

[parson]

i said i am not bitter about it but you're lying so stop. and you continue to deflect.

its transparent and annoying.

but i'm ready to move on.

i've got a buzz to generate.

[gwa]

and since when was wikipedia the dubstep bible? or the bible for any matter. you can edit it yourself.. hell, me and a friend of mine have been the 'creators' of the windows media visulizations for fucking time.

anyone that uses wikipedia for research is a tool.

[parson]

nobody ever said wiki was anything more than it is which is a site that gets a fuckload of hits.

[gwa]

i know, i was just saying in general.

[seckle]

i said i am not bitter about it but you're lying so stop. and you continue to deflect.

its transparent and annoying.

but i'm ready to move on.

i've got a buzz to generate.

now i'm lying! ok , so how am I lying parson? and make sure you have some proof to back up what you're saying, because otherwise its just the normal hot air machine from you. lets hear it. i can't wait for this...

[seckle]

and since when was wikipedia the dubstep bible? or the bible for any matter. you can edit it yourself.. hell, me and a friend of mine have been the 'creators' of the windows media visulizations for fucking time.

anyone that uses wikipedia for research is a tool.

there's been dozens of times that music journalists have been caught referring to things said on Wiki. Most magazines and newspapers will fire you if you're caught doing it. there was a case at the washington post a few years ago.