Joe: "I think it's important for a discography to include both the incorrect information and the (documented) correction....If incorrect information gets out, it must be refuted, not merely deleted."

It's tempting to call Discogs a discography or a marketplace but at its core it is an advertising platform. The technical term is "Database." Anybody can submit/edit anything at anytime but the process (should) follow a convoluted mix of rules, style guidelines & forum consensus (the equivalent of Mudcat threads.) It deviates from "reality" about as often and in the same manner as a Star Trek discussion forum on Klingon. As long as the peoples are having fun it's all good as far as Management is concerned. It deviates from fun about as often and in the same manner as a Mudcat thread.

It being a de facto artwork d/b (as opposed to a discography) is not a minor consideration. Each submission is a live inventory location. If anyone on the planet has the "wrong" credit in their collection, it's in. If the credit is corrected on later artwork it constitutes an entirely new, unique submission to the d/b. Both exist therefore both are valid. All links to incorrectly credited artists remain in situ right alongside the newer corrected links. Outside the realm of pirated CDr etc., a submission (or credit thereon) will not be deleted from the database.