Tony , it is not a question of it being your sole responsiblity, or your fault, nor is it your fault that wikpedia is not comprehensive. but it does not alter the fact that it is by its nature amatauerish [that is not a reflection upon you or your work.
It is not comprehensive, it is amateurish[ compiled by unpaid volunteers]
As an encyclopedia it is not always reliable and as a comprehensive guide to the uk folk revival it is lacking and of an amateur nature .
it does no favours imo to the professional performers who are omitted because of its outdated rules, yet it pretends to be representative ITIS NOT
Professional perfomers have suffered for many years at the hands of amateurish reviewers, fortunately we are no longer at the hands of some of the folk magazine reviewers,
Wikipedia and its entries on uk folk artists are not comprehensive they are amateurish [the work of unpaid volunteers], it has outdated rules, it us pretentious and is lacking in content