Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 08:45 AM

wikepedia is not a great facilty, it is a facilty that couldbe useful but is not ,because of its failings which hjave been pointed out earlier in this thread. it is not a great facilty as an encyclopedia either, because of its inaccuracies.
you see al, wikipedia would not let you register , because you would not be allowed under its rules, you have not recorded on an independent label neither have you appeared on national television, it does not matter how many gigs you have done, you are not considerd a star.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 09:07 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_%26_Denise

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 09:16 AM

Just found this - I didn't put any of these up ...honest!


http://rosma.co.uk/mw/oba/index.php?title=Alan_Whittle

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: cnd
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 10:05 AM

A few comments:

No encyclopedia can have everyone. I have in my possession Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, a 10-volume set on US historical figures and events from 1492 to 1905 (when the series was published) and it discludes several impactful people -- some of whom even have Wiki pages! For example, North Carolina's controversial Civil War governor Zebulon Baird Vance was not mentioned in the encyclopedia. However, that does not make the encyclopedia 'unprofessional' -- it just means there's a limit to what can or can't be included and what is notable in a national sense. Nothing can ever be 'complete' in that way.

I will also add that the point of this thread is to ameliorate several of the complaints you're making... the whole point of this thread is that there are people missing from Wiki and that that should be fixed. That they're missing is a problem which is actively trying to be remedied.

Wikipedia has never attempted to pretend it's a professional service or anything other that a free, open-source assemblage of information. It even has a whole page about it, titled "Wikipedia is not a reliable source." It's goal is simply to make information more easily available to the general public, which I think, for the most part, it does a pretty good job of.

I will agree that Wiki moderators are a bit crazy at times. I used to contribute a great deal to WWII-history pages and made several pages about the US campaign in the Pacific. I created a page about the Japanese invasion of Batan Island, which was hastily deleted because a mod thought I was trying to talk about Bataan. However, thankfully, you can argue your point and a reasonable consensus can (generally) be reached.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 10:48 AM

wikepedia is not a reliable source. quote wiki
in that case it should not be trying to make information available to the general public.
FFS...THE GENERAL PUBLIC WANTS RELIABLE INFORMATION

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 10:51 AM

As a kid I was chartreuse with envy for my cousin who had a full set of Everyman Encyclopaedia. I spent ages in the reference library in Boston where there was a Chambers set.

I remember looking for Palmer and Pritchard. Two Victorian murderers mentioned The Speckled Band by Conan Doyle. Of course neither were in Chambers! But later I wrote a song about William Palmer.

I would have loved having access to something like Wikipedia in my own home.

I think its a great thing, and we all should be in properly.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: cnd
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 11:04 AM

So because it's not perfect people shouldn't even try? That's a rather nihilistic way of seeing things.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 11:14 AM

Dick,

There are actually few things that can't be put on Wikipedia if people are conscientious in how they compile the entry. This includes authoritative citations to outside sources, links, photos, etc.

Wikipedia is NOT the place to get your research for college or any other papers - it is the Starting Point. That said, it doesn't mean that these posts are wrong. It means you read each post with an eye to accuracy or determining if there is a better source or more needs to be added (at which point you may add it.)

You are so busy deriding the people who post on Wikipedia while at the same time complaining that they (not you, but they) haven't done the work. You can't have it both ways.

Your Wikipedia jeremiad is uncalled-for. Tony Rees has generously offered all of us a good look at behind-the-scenes functionality, where serious catalogers do the work for posts on Wikipedia. He Offered To Make Your List of Missing Performers. ("I might even create this list, if pressed, and no-one else wishes to volunteer their services. I do have the book mentioned, although if somebody wants to suggest a more up-to-date equivalent from their holdings, go for it (but then you would have to create the list...)") So step back and quit complaining.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 12:23 PM

There are probably a lot of corners of Wikipedia like this one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-theory

I knew the guy who wrote most of that page. He also wrote most of the books referenced in it. The page worked as a repository for links to updates in the field. Almost all modern mathematics is in there, documented by similar means.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 12:32 PM

I have aright to criticise its reliabilty, and i have not been alone., I made constructive criticism that is positive not negative,
i have made constructive criticism, pointing out that they should change their rules because they are outdated, making a suggestion how to improve [by removing the outdated rule about independent recordings], because these days nearly everybody on the uk folk revival scene does their own recordings. until they do that they are restricting their abilty to make the subject comprehensive
that is positive, constructive criticism. constructive criticism is making criticism about how to improve something, that is EXACTLY What i have done.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 12:39 PM

I am not affected by that rule, as I have made recordings on independent record companies.
My concern is about a rule that does not affect me personally, but affects other people who should be on there, and affects wikis abilty to deal with the subject in a comprehensive fashion, that is constructive criticism.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 12:51 PM

There's not much point making such criticism here. I doubt Wikipedia's editorial board have even heard of Mudcat. They have a section called the Village Pump for discussing changes and improvements, perhaps you could discuss your criticisms there and report back to this thread on how they are received.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 01:06 PM

imo there is much point in airing the crticisms here , it makes people aware of the limtations of wikipedia as a site particularly about tradtional and folk music, as this is a folk music site this is exactly the place to raise awareness of wikis limitations on this subject.
      Manitas, if i want to discuss aspects of folk music and wiki sites that purport or have pretensions to provide knowledge about folk music. I go to folk music site such as mudcat , because that is where you find people who are interested in folk music. i do not go to asite that is about cycling, or surfing

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 02:43 PM

Richard Miles is a fine musician and he tries hard for folk music in England, and Ireland.

We all know the internet is a bit of a bastard. These companies start off and before long you CANNOT contact a human being to explain your point of view... companies that started out with three blokes round the kitchen table - within days they become unreformable monolithic structures - about as interested in diverse points of view as the Waffen SS.

We've all experienced it. i feel his pain. However, what is the answer. There must be one. If we can't manage any cohesiveness as a group - (and mudcat's world of blood and insults would confirm that to many) - maybe the umbrella of something like Wikipedia could give us an awareness of cohesiveness and alll being headed to wards the light.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 02:55 PM

If Wiki is acknowledged as being unreliable & has pernickety rules, why would anyone refer to it about anything at all. There are plenty of reliable places where 'folk' information is readily available!
just ask the collectors like Doc Rowe directly- they'd be glad to help, in my experience.

No, the only ones who are concerned are those who want to see their name in lights like BUDDY HOLLY et al.

It doesn't matter how much practice you do or how many CDs you've made or how many tours of Brobdignag you've done, this thread seems to be about daft folkies to put in daft and unchecked information about other folkies - if they think you're worth it, they'll do it, but what value it has beats me.... and such inevitably duff information will be a HINDRANCE not a help to future researchers.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:03 PM

I agree Jim.
How to improve the site, can it be improved so that it is comprehensive . perhaps if the rules are changed.
Is it worth improving.
Jim says there are plenty of reliable places where folk info is available, perhaps i am wrong in trying to suggest improvements perhaps jim bainbridge is right

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:09 PM

I use it when I feel a bit interested.

I don't always want to buy a book about a subject and research it thoroughly. quite often - its about as much as I want to know - or it alerts me to the existence of a book I would be interested in.

It would be interesting to know what Wikipedia has done to disillusion and let down all these people.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:44 PM

For what it's worth - I use Wikipedia for two purposes...

- As a convenient "point of entry" on the web for a person or topic I want to know more about. You can usually judge from the length and style of the article whether or not it is well done and/or reliable or complete. Then, it is also useful as a pointer to what is out there in other places (source used, external links, etc.) - so that you can check for yourself whether the information in the article is correct, if you wish.

- As a place to collate useful information I have found, that is not yet on Wikipedia, for the benefit of others. Hence my interest in contributing new articles, or expansion of existing ones. E.g. if I am searching WP for information that I think should be there, but isn't, I will add it so as to make others' online searching easier. That's it in a nutshell.

For example, I went to Wikipedia looking for information on Isla Cameron (prominent 1950s-1960s folk artist, but little known today). There was not a lot there, so I researched some more, and added it to the article. Now it's not bad: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isla_Cameron... The good thing about Wikipedia is that if others do the same, it can get better again (or more complete, or whatever). So in general (as you can probably tell), I think Wikipedia is A Good Thing - not perfect or complete by any means, but a good deal better than the old pre-internet days.

Just my 2 cents worth of course.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: DaveRo
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:54 PM

I first used 'pernikety' in this thread. I said that (in my experience) some editors can be pernickety. I don't have a problem with the rules, or the principles, of wikipedia. But there are people who 'patrol' the site, who seem to take pleasure in reversing edits and slapping 'citation required' tags on stuff about which they know nothing. Then there are contributors who write things that are plain wrong, and will revert any correction you make. So contributing can be a frustrating process. But I think it's worthwhile, to share yor knowledge with others.

Wikipedia is not remotely complete or comprehensive. But for some subjects - technology for example - it's as up to date and authoritative as you can get. It reflects the interests of the people who have the time, enthusiasm, and technical ability to contribute.

I use it daily, and regularly contribute funds to it.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 04:02 PM

It has been a complaint about Wikipedia that it serves colonized cultures very poorly by its insistence on secondary sources. For many of them, oral tradition is the main repository of knowledge and the only worthwhile written sources will be primary ones.

So, I had a look at a topic in the history of Glasgow. Notice who's left out?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govanhill_Baths

Ideas on how to fix it? I don't know enough to find everything he contributed.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:23 PM

I have to say that I have a generally favorable impression of the information in Wikipedia. The entries go through a fairly strict process of peer review, and that comes up with pretty good information. I use it all the time in teaching Bible study, and I find the Bible articles to be scholarly and untainted by people with extremist agendas.
I've tried to make minor corrections on folk music entries here and there, but I generally find that my submissions are rejected. The reason? They say I am too closely connected with the Mudcat Cafe and with the Rise Again and Rise Up Singing songbooks, and anything I post could be construed as self-promotion - and self-promotion is an absolute no-no on Wikipedia.
I've been knocked down by Wikipedia editors enough that I usually don't bother anymore. I haven't found the secret of getting anything major like a whole sentence accepted, although I do sneak in spelling corrections without interference.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:45 PM

Hi Joe,

If your corrections/additions are referenced to appropriate sources published by others (e.g. mudcat does not count as it is a user forum), I do not see any reason why your contributions should not be entirely acceptable. Referencing is the key, in my experience. Agreed, unreferenced material is liable to be removed, but it should not matter who is making the changes if they are adequately sourced.

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:49 PM

Sorry, just re-reading your post - perhaps you are saying that you are citing information from your own published work. Ideally this should not be a problem (depending perhaps on whether or not the works are self-published) but a workaround would be to get a friend or fellow editor to make the changes, if they are in agreement with the sentiments to be expressed. Just a thought.

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 07:53 PM

OK, here is the other half of the Govanhill Baths story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alistair_Hulett

But it doesn't mention his work for the campaign to keep the baths open, which took up a huge amount of his energy when he was in Glasgow. The page seems to have been written by an Australian who took no interest in what he did after he left. Between them, these two pages are an exercise in not joining the dots.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 04:14 AM

Hi, Tony - I get the impression that I have been tagged as suspect because I am associated with a number of well-known entities. One of those entities was deemed to have a self-promoting Wikipedia article (and I might agree). I had nothing to do with the Wikipedia article, but I was blacklisted because of my association with the entity. I am welcome to comment and to make suggestions, but not to do editing beyond spelling corrections. They even balked when I corrected a bad link. They accepted my correction, but told me not to do it again.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: G-Force
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 06:06 AM

I love Wikipedia, and can spend hours just surfing it, hoovering up information on anything I find interesting. It's not perfect, but nor is anything else.

Example: I have quite a deep interest in classical music. Wikipedia will tell me about many 'minor' composers who don't find their way even into a big fat tome like the Oxford Companion to Music.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 02:05 PM

In reply to Joe Offer: Joe, if you believe you may have been blacklisted in error, and can be bothered to pursue it, you can raise the matter at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

in case this helps - this will get an opinion from an admin and possibly action, I would think...

It would help if you have a record of the chain of actions that led to your situation, and it is demonstrable that something unfair has occurred.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 02:39 PM

Hi, Tony -

I harbor no animosity, and I still give a an annual donation to Wikipedia. The facts are correct. I work for the folks who produced the Rise Up Singing books, and the Wikipedia page on one of the books was embarrassingly rosy. So, out of an abundance of caution, they informally blacklisted me. I'm happy for their concern for integrity.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 03:19 PM

OK Joe, thanks for the explanation, so long as you can sleep happy in your bed, no problem...

Returning to the main topic of the thread:

** Announcement **

After a number of days of effort, as foreshadowed above, I have produced a concordance between the 1993 publication "The Guinness Who's Who of Folk Music" (553 primary entries, plus an additional 86 "add ons" of possible secondary interest) and the present content of Wikipedia; acts already with a WP article show up with a blue link, acts with no article (under the name specified) show up with a red one. The list has been adjusted for possible conflicts, for example the first name on the list, Doris Abrahams, clashes with an existing "Doris Abrahams" page that is for a different person, so behind-the-scenes that link (if it should be created) would go to a new page that does not yet exist, entitled "Doris Abrahams (singer-songwriter)". (There is also an existing Dick Miles, but not the musician, same would apply).

So, this list - which should be self maintaining - allows the interested party to make an assessment of the completeness of Wikipedia coverage (at any current or future time) as compared to the selection of names listed in the Guinness volume. I leave it to others to comment further, and/or address any missing entries as they feel fit...

Oh yes, the list is here:
Missing encyclopedic articles/The Guinness Who's Who of Folk Music


Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 04:43 PM

The whole "no self-promotion" bit must be an internal challenge for the Wiki management folks. I have a friend who found an article about himself and his work that had a lot of incorrect information. He didn't know who the original author was. As far as I know he and his business partner encountered no pushback when they went in and performed the corrections (military service, alma mater, more about the business, etc.)

There are levels of editing as far as if you have an account in the community, if you're logged in, etc. It used to be they'd publish your IP address for reference if you made edits on pages when not logged in. I haven't been back for a while but I used to dabble in there periodically. I'll have to see if the account is still current.

If there are accounts that get a lot of bickering they will lock them down and only certain individuals can edit them, to prevent the wild swinging back and forth of versions and revisions and back again.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 04:53 PM

We had some pretty wild comments on the Wikipedia page about Mudcat once upon a time. I was describes as some sort of petty tyrant, and I always thought I was a pretty nice guy.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 04:59 PM

I think it goes with the territory. If people write about you. they invariably get it all wrong.

You can't get worked up about it. Well you could... and I suppose sometimes you do. But nobody lives so long that you can afford to expend emotional energy on what people write who have no knowledge of you.

In the vast majority of cases you fling a mental insult at the idiot involved and just get on with what you do. And if that happens to be the serious attempt to create music - it is sufficient unto the day.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 05:24 PM

You can add to a page about yourself so long as you "declare a conflict of interest" - e.g. see the box at top left on my Wikipedia user page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony_1212. Of course, changes and new statements must still be appropriately referenced, i.e. to something that is published outside of Wikipedia.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 06:02 PM

yes there is a famous table tennis player who has the name dick the chopper miles

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Malcolm Storey
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 08:18 PM

Just catching up - don't know why!?

Must ask the question.

Why was Buddy Holly's name in LARGE BLOCK CAPITALS in an earlier somewhat defamatory posting?

He has been dead nearly 60 years but is still a hero as far as I and a lot of other people are concerned.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 01 Apr 21 - 08:50 PM

geez, Tony, 533 & 86 entries! I gave up skimming thru in the 180s

What do you do when you are not busy? I have a few suggestions for Oz folk next time you are busy.

sandra

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 01:07 AM

Hi Sandra, well it's not my list, it is the set of names in the UK "Guinness Who's Who of Folk Music", published in 1993, uploaded as one possible "yardstick" against which Wikipedia's current coverage (in terms of artist articles) can be assessed. Comments are awaited with interest, as the northern hemisphere wakes up and we Oz folks settle down to a night in front of the telly, then off to bed!

One observation - of course if I had used another source, I may well have ended up with a different list. But the main "big names" are certainly there, along with a possibly representative percentage of the smaller ones (50%? 20%? how many are out there... as well of course as others who have emerged post-1993).

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 01:28 AM

The Wikipedia folks have noticed the navel-gazing aspect on the Mudcat entry - there is a boilerplate entry at the top of the page:

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 03:59 AM

Malcolm. no idea.
Stilly, could you clarify. iam not uhderstanding your drif, what navel gazing

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 05:16 AM

Malcolm, I think Dick meant that BUDDY HOLLY el al (his use of upper case) are already oh Wiki as they are well known & established & no need for folkies to promote such as BH.

I have no time for Wiki, and I think anyone who wastes their time with it (or its Wikifolk stuff) is DAFT, so if you think that is defamatory, so be it.

Also popular figures like BUDDY HOLLY & others are part of the folk process & as such, have long been part of my repertoire, but dome MY way.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 07:22 AM

Sandman
'navel gazing'
SRS is referring to the message from Wiki admin at the top of the page on
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudcat_Caf%C3%A9

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 08:08 AM

I think the main problem with that Mudcat entry is that almost all the references are to the forum itself. If there are ‘profiles’ of Mudcat anywhere else (Digital Tradition, fRoots, EFDSS, etc etc) that could be directed to instead of/as well as these internal Mudcat links, I think that could go a long way towards clearing that banner.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 09:08 AM

It's not "navel gazing". Perhaps "too meta"? But I can't imagine someone contributing to the Wiki who ISN'T "too closely associated" with Mudcat who'd contribute. Maybe someone out there in Snopesville, but people who'd know anything are members, or people who post to Mudcat. It would be like expecting a stranger to review your family dynamics.
Mudcat's too small, and if all the people who know about it are eliminated as objective sources, fergitaboutit.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 10:05 AM

Why so much animosity (from a very small coterie) to the idea of providing a compact, referenced introduction to something written by people who know about it? Are Dick and Jim equally opposed to the DNB and the New Grove?

I mentioned one folkie who has so far been served rather badly by the Wiki model - Alistair Hulett. Most likely because the writer only knew about the first half of his career and didn't think to tell anyone outside Australia what they were doing. That can be fixed. On the other hand, this one is about as good as you could get within the space because Anne stayed put and information about her isn't scattered around the globe. What is there here for Jim or Dick to take exception to?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Feeney

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 10:26 AM

animosity well i can only speak for myself
my domments were constructive criticism, as to how wiki could be improved.
as for buddy holly , i have yet to hear anyone who performed buddy holly songs as well as buddy holly.
that includes jim bainbridge and even andy caven.
jim. of course plays melodeon well, but sounds like a geordie singing buddy holly, the performance is of a good standard as one has got used to over the years from jim bainbridge ,of course being a geordie that is to be expected,that he sounds like a geordie
    but quite frankly if i want to hear buddy holly, i can put on a cd or listen to him on you tube,accompanied by the crickets and as far as i am concerned no one else is as good at buddy holly as buddy holly himself.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Malcolm Storey
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 10:37 AM

Jim

Had not seen Dick's post and when read prior to yours it does mitigate your post.

I think we can be sure Buddy had nothing to do with Wiki anything.

I would probably agree with you on the viability of Wiki folk - the knowledge pool is, by definition, too small.

I do use Wikipedia for other interests and it is far more accurate and useful and accessible.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 11:06 AM

of courxe buddy had nothing to do with wiki, it did not exist , however buddy holly was not averse to the benefits publicity about himself, he was after all a pop star who had acareer and wanted to further it.
Jims point[ as i understand it] is that pop music and folk music and the uk folk revival are not the same or should not use the same tools to promote it,
Jim quote
If Wiki is acknowledged as being unreliable & has pernickety rules, why would anyone refer to it about anything at all. There are plenty of reliable places where 'folk' information is readily available!
just ask the collectors like Doc Rowe directly- they'd be glad to help, in my experience.

No, the only ones who are concerned are those who want to see their name in lights like BUDDY HOLLY et al.Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge - PM
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 04:52 AM

Like everything online, it's only as good as the material input by the alleged folk experts, so the various Wikis are totally arbitrary anyway.

Some of the material is certainly valid,but always down to personal preference- folk music has NOTHING to do with all this cult of personality- the music is what matters.

Who's in and who's out of a ridiculous pedia like this is totally irrelevant- get a life, the folk 'stars' who worry about such stuff are mainly a pain in the arse anyway- I'm sure Doc rowe doesn't give a monkey's.....

It doesn't matter how much practice you do or how many CDs you've made or how many tours of Brobdignag you've done, this thread seems to be about daft folkies to put in daft and unchecked information about other folkies - if they think you're worth it, they'll do it, but what value it has beats me.... and such inevitably duff information will be a HINDRANCE not a help to future researchers.
SO JIM SAYS THAT FOLK MUSIC HAS NOTHING TO WITH THIS CULT OF PERSONALITY
I agree with that point
but is using wiki to promote particular artists turning it in to a cult of personality?
. my opinion is this
the uk folk revival has already to some extent becopme a cult of personality
2. wiki, is only any use if it is reliable and comprehensive , otherwise people are better off using other refernce points, at the moment it is not comprehensive and not al;ways reliable, however it could be open to improvement if its rules were changed and if its moderators and contributors knew or were well informed about folk music .
3 that does not mean that tony rees does not know about the subject but he is only one contributor

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 11:07 AM

If I'm searching for information on types and sizes of computer cables and enter a general search in the Google search bar, Wikipedia is often the best choice in the top search results. There are many things that are perfectly good, clear, and succinct, without the marketing you'll find on commercial web sites.

Dick, we understand your position. Perfectly. We understood it the 21 other times you've come back and RESTATED it. Your work here is done. Now all that is left is you get yourself a Wikipedia account and start fixing or creating posts.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 11:15 AM

I think maybe you're playing those Buddy Holly tracks inside your head without the use of a cd player

Jagger's version of Not Fade Away...?

James Taylor or don Maclean's version of Every day....?

that version of Love Hurts in Tutti Frutti

Even if you think these versions are vastly inferior to Buddy's, I'm sure Buddy and his family would be thrilled knowing that artists of this stature wanted to try to do their own interpretation. Or for that matter that Joe Bloggs down the folk club related to the song enough to want to play it.

for a songwriter there is no higher tribute. It is the start of your song's entry into the folk process. perhaps if we heard what singers were making of our songs in a couple of hundred years - we would not recognise our creation - but the process starts somewhere.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 01:46 PM

DNB & New Grove mean nothing to me??- is the latter a replacement for the old Grove, that wonderful music pub in central Leeds? I hope not!

Of course I can't do Buddy Holly as well as Buddy Holly- he was the product of his own tradition- I do it my way, as it should be by someone from South Shields & make no apology for my Geordie accent.

I used to find my accent enabled me to get away with singing Irish songs in Ireland.

One fella in another wonderful old pub, Arundels of Schull, said he liked my version of Boolavogue & asked which county I was from- he was a bit puzzled when I said County Durham- he thought a bit & got the joke...