Grishka wrote:

> Generally, historians will want to know what you liked, and why

Interesting... as what I would term mainly a back room / "personal enjoyment" player, with no significant national or even local following, I would not have thought the outside world really cares what I "like" - other than my purchasing power perhaps, adding the odd +1 to album, book or magazine sales!

And in my limited authorship of Wikipedia articles on music related topics, what the writer in question thinks is explicitly out of scope - unless documented elsewhere in certain circumstances (peer reviewed or other non self published work, in the main) - you have to report what others, not the editor think and have committed to public record. (Photos are an exception - you can take and use your own, if you are happy to release them under an appropriate free-to-use licence). Of course in other outlets the editor is much more free to express his or her own views and impressions (record and live performance reviews being an obvious case).

Of course, if I were a folklorist or other professional/semi-professional commentator, or indeed an amateur photographer/recordist and thus documenter of some aspects of the "scene" by that manner, (which does apply in my case), what I "like" would presumably be visible to interested parties in that it is reflected in those areas that I choose to spend my time (therefore my choice of subjects for documentation)... same with other interviewers, article or book authors, etc. One could also trawl through my messages to this and other forums if really interested, to see the topics that have inspired me to comment! But I am still not convinced that future historians will find me much of a figure of interest for their study, when there are so many others higher up in the pantheon of musicians to spend their time on!