I came to this thread late. Maybe interest has already dissipated.

I'd like to respond to the idea of a "folk wiki." I like the idea—sort of. But don't try to do it here. In fact, don't try to do it anywhere but at Wikipedia. That would really be reinventing the wheel!

Wikipedia already has the right software, the right protocol, the right format, the right style, the right attitude, the right principles, the right structure, the right precedents, etc. I can't think of a way to improve it. (But if I did, I'd bet they already have a procedure in place for proposing and considering changes to their style, format, etc.)

All they lack is your information.

Go for it! If you have the knowledge, the resources, the writing skill, and the time, combined with a passion for accuracy and fact checking, become an editor/contributor to Wikipedia.

Only problem is, if you have those qualities, I'd hate to lose your contributions to Mudcat, but such is life. Make them to Wikipedia instead, and you'll probably reach a wider audience.

Wikipedia already has some good information about folk music (or whatever you call the kinds of music we often discuss here). For good examples, check out the articles "Blue Tail Fly" "Streets of Laredo" "List of blackface minstrel songs" "La Cucaracha" "Music hall" "Morris dance."

Wikipedia is so easy to use, I don't even have to make links to the articles.

By the way, have you noticed that many articles at Wikipedia link back to Mudcat?

There is some discussion at BS: Wikipediaists? and in Wow! Read This About Wikipedia.