Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 15 Apr 21 - 07:26 PM

thanks, Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 15 Apr 21 - 02:50 PM

Also I have re-ordered the paragraphs so that the article corresponds a bit more closely with "typical" Wikipedia style, and flows better (to my eye). Again one must expect others to chip in and further adjust anything one writes, once the initial words have been written (they may or may not survive into the long term, but hopefully an improved version will...). Sometimes if the changes are significant, they will be discussed on the accompanying article "talk" page (in this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Roud) but for simple stylistic or minor editorial changes this is not normally required.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 15 Apr 21 - 01:42 AM

I have made that change as requested, although of course Wikipedia editing is open to anyone who feels the urge to do so.

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 21 - 06:10 PM

Trying to be helpful rather than 'picky'. On the Steve Roud page the first sentence in the section on the song index is a condensation of the first two sentences on the Round Folk Song Index page but reads as if he collected them from oral tradition.

I lack the skills to to make the change but how about "Roud compiled the The Roud Folk Song Index, a database of around 250,000[1] references to nearly 25,000 songs collected from oral tradition in the English language from all over the world.

(Nice job though, thanks)

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Apr 21 - 04:13 PM

That is good news about Doc , imo his work, makes him is an important figure in the uk folk revival.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Malcolm Storey
Date: 13 Apr 21 - 07:59 PM

We had a 2 hour 20 minute zoom chat with Doc & Jill today and one of the things mentioned was Doc's Wikipedia entry.

Not before time of course!

He is more than happy with it (now that he has made corrections) and thanks whoever was responsible.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 07:51 PM

Did the writer of O Sole Mio, intend for it to turn into Just One Cornetto?

The song is out there now - and is having its own adventures independent of the original creator.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 04:22 PM

What Jeri said.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 04:16 PM

Those were nice touches to improve the Steve Roud page. And a superb effort on the Doc Rowe one.

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

Once your song has been published. Its gone. You have lost control of it.

Anyone can sing it with different words and a different tune.

If you're lucky enough to make a commercial recording, the guy who is putting up the money has the right to effect what changes he wants to make it marketable. He'd be a fool to speculate his company's money on any other basis. In which case - you've lost control before the public have had a sniff of your creation.

These are the harsh facts of being a composer.

Of course this presumes that anyone is interested enough to listen to your creation in the first place. if no one gives a shit - you can have as many delusions of grandeur as you like.

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

Just to show how this stuff can be mildly addictive (in a good way, hopefully), here is a possibly diverting aside. ALERT: no folk music content here - if that bothers you, do not read any further!

Years ago (1999 or so), in my "scientist" persona (my then day job), I encountered a US-led project that was starting up, then called the "Census of the Fishes", which morphed shortly after into the "Census of Marine Life". Its key backer and proponent, one Jesse Ausubel, used to refer to it as "looking at the ocean through a macroscope". I did not exactly know what he meant but sorta guessed: you use a microscope to look at something too small to comprehend, a macroscope for something at the other end of the scale, i.e. too big.

Fast forward to last year (June 2020) and it idly occurred to me to look up "macroscope" (in that sense) in Wikipedia to find out more about the concept, and discovered that such an article did not exist; so I did the required research and decided to create one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscope_(science_concept) ... Actually I found the process and challenge quite enjoyable. However, there was a fly in the ointment, as I also remembered from my science background that there was a laboratory instrument called a "Macroscope", not for looking at the world writ small but for viewing (and in particular, photographing) flies, etc. So to complete the picture, and to permit users to find what they were looking for in either case, I then had to create that article as well, now done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscope_(Wild-Leica) .

All going to show that wikipedia contribution can take you to some unexpected places on occasion, but you do end up knowing some things that you did not before, plus get an odd sort of "warm fuzzy " feeling when your work is done -- except that it never is!!

Regards - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 02:25 PM

Excellent work on "Doc Rowe", BlackAcorn ... a great example of what Wikipedia does best - SYNTHESIS!! You have done all the work of chasing down information in 30+ different sources, and synthesizing it into a coherent whole, for the benefit of others. Well done!

Also of course since the world is changing, and/or new sources may come to light, the article can evolve further as needed through time.

The new section "Writings" in the Steve Roud article is also an excellent addition.

Good stuff - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: cnd
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 01:11 PM

Nice work BlackAcorn, looks good!

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jeri
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 12:50 PM

Dick, "wikpedias rules are aimed at avoiding self promotion , and here you are suggesting that i make entries myself". Unless you're planning on only writing about yourself, how can it be self promotion? I'm betting that you would. It's not what Maggie meant, but it's not surprising, you assumed she meant you could write about you. What about all those other people you think they're missing?

I'm thinking including people who are at least somewhat widely known, and more info that simply a list.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 11:19 AM

Also, just to show how easy/straightforward shorter edits are - I've added a section to cite praise for Steve Roud's published writings; I've also added the previously missing citations that should see the 'unverified' banner removed from the top of the page as soon as admins get a chance to review. All that took about 45 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Roud

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 11:18 AM

Hello all - just to update, I've completed a page on Doc Rowe that has now been accepted by the editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Rowe


...It took quite a long time (maybe 6 hours in total, from research, through writing, to uploading on the site), but it was written from scratch. The most arduous aspect was ensuring that there were references to evidence each element... But, I'm reasonably happy with it!

Other than formatting corrections, the only edits made by moderators were to remove a couple of superlatives that I'd slipped in there (fair enough, as Wikipedia seeks a neutral point-of-view).

I think the fact that Doc was already mentioned on other Wiki pages as the winner of the EFDSS Gold Badge and the Folklore Society Coote Lake Medal made acceptance of his notability quite a smooth affair, reinforced by the two killer quotes I've included in the introduction!

Now I just need to get someone to upload some pics of Doc that they own the copyright for, to Wikimedia Commons so that I can add an image or two to this page.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GerryM
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 05:49 AM

"If there are ‘profiles’ of Mudcat anywhere else...." I wrote one for the website of the Folk Federation of New South Wales. But maybe I'm too closely associated with Mudcat.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 01:55 AM

Maggie, busking is about playing music , you are judged purely on the merits of how you are on the day , the most honest of performing, you are not judged on a reputation built partly by self promotional bullshit,or as jim said
" the cult of the personality", all that personality cult stuff belong to and emanates from the pop music scene
in my experience when at you are busking you are giving people pleasure by making music, cheering people up, ,fairly important at the moment

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Apr 21 - 01:30 AM

Stilly
wikpedias rules are aimed at avoiding self promotion , and here you are suggesting that i make entries myself.
Yesterday i went out busking a much better use of my time,than pissing about writing a lot of self promotional twaddle and indulging as Jim rightly puts it the furtherance of the cult of personality

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 11:41 PM

I should add, RE "[somebody should] explain what's good about his books" - Wkipedia relies on secondary sources (what someone has already written) about items such as books, records, etc. It does not give its own opinions... if such secondary sources disagree, it can report that, too - as per my section on "critical reception" of the (Australian) film "Travelling North":

"Critical reviews of the movie were largely positive, with one or two notable exceptions. On www.rogerebert.com, Roger Ebert gave the movie 3.5 stars, stating:

(quote) Nothing much really happens in "Traveling North," in the sense of large events to move the plot ahead... [But] This is a film of everyday life, and all the more moving because of that. It’s not a film of sentiment, but a film of love: It loves old Frank just as he is, but without forgiving him a single wart. And it loves Frances, too, for her loyalty but also because she sees the situation clearly and does not deceive herself.[7]

On the other hand, Hal Hinson, in the Washington Post, wrote:

(quote) What remains of the film is taken up with a catalogue of Frank's heart problems, his arguments with his doctor (Henri Szeps), and his self-centered despotism toward Frances, who suffers through all with her mouth puckered up like a disapproving schoolmarm. ... How much you like "Travelling North" may depend on how you respond to crusty old codgers who waddle around in their shorts with their ample guts hanging over their waistbands, bellowing out their general disdain for life and the living to all within earshot. Me? I'd rather eat dirt.[8]

--- As you can see, adequately sourced quotations can be included verbatim, so long as (in the Editor's vew) they say something of value to the article, and do so succinctly - otherwise they can be precis'ed, or filleted to produce the desired brevity.

Regards - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 10:29 PM

Hi Jack,

If you do not think a page is as good as it should be, you can simply become an editor and fix it. As Wikipedia itself says: Be Bold ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold

If you really do not want to edit the article yourself, you can maybe put out a request here with the issues to be addressed more specifically and perhaps someone else will, if they have the interest to do so.

As to the "better photo" issue, with a few exceptions - normally for persons depicted who are no longer around - Wikipedia pages can only display photos that have been "gifted" for public use by their owners, e.g. as uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for that purpose. So I am guessing that there are no better ones of Steve Roud available for use at this time (although could be wrong), although that too can be fixed if anyone has a better photo or photos that they are willing to upload for the purpose.

Regards - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 08:43 PM

I just looked up the Steve Roud page. It's dreadful.

Somebody please add a better photo and explain what's good about his books.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Malcolm Storey
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 08:17 PM

Just had a thought and viz a viz nothing in particular.

About 60 years ago myself and a work colleague Colin Page came second in a works do talent competition singing an unaccompanied version of the Everly Brothers hit Dream.

The girl that won was a better than average musician and singer and was much better looking than either Colin or me.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Apr 21 - 02:15 PM

yes, Jim fair comment and you are a good perfoRmer..
It is the start of your song's entry into the folk process." quote Al, debatable but just your opinion, not fact, some modern songs do get mistaken for trad but certainly not every song that is written, then there is the problem with copyrighted songs,thAt they do not evolve and become folk processed ,lyric wise, the lyrics are set in stone and the composer has every right to object to changes, Anne Lister recently mentioned this as regards Icarus. IF A SONG WRITER WRITES A SONG HE/SHE INTENDS IT TO HAVE A CERTAIN MEANING.

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...

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 08:23 AM

I agree, Big Al. Also, with the huge attention generated by sea shanties recently, it feels important for the information to be there, for those who may be newly seeking it.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 07:35 AM

I rather disagree. We all use wikipedia. Its a great facility.

I think maybe we should register our presence. Who we were, for future generations. what we thought, and what we did as consequence of that.

We were part of an important artistic movement. If ever you thought the folk movement capable of rising above factionalism, and this awful 'I'm right, You're wrong', this is a definite opportunity.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 06:19 AM

DaveRo, that's a really interesting/important point about the 'recency bias' of Wikipedia, re: the greater ease of providing references for topics that have been covered during the internet age.

They do seem to accept credibly presented book and newspaper, magazine etc citations without web links - but it's obviously much more intensive work, to find and note those sorts of sources.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:46 AM

You'd have to be out of your mind to edit a page about Jim Carroll. Mike Yates wouldn't create problems but he's a bit niche too.

I looked up concertina stuff, starting with Regondi. He's there. The concertina page could do with more on the hardware and the social history. The information is available. (Perhaps Dick could try entering some of it?) But the page certainly doesn't need a list of all-Ireland concertina champions - that really is anorak central.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:18 AM

JimCarroll and Mike Yates would be another example of people who probably would not qualify UNDER THE PERNICKITY RULES OF WIKI yet surely their collected material and its publicising. is more important than if you have recorded on an independent label

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:13 AM

get a life ." i have a life, jim .
it involves playing music which i do every day going through tunes singing songs etc . I PRACTISE MY SONGS AND TUNES EVERY DAY recently i went busking in Bantry and was given a 100 euros.
folk music has nothing to do with cult of personality, i agree. it is about doing it and participating, keeping the tunes and songs played we are sopng and tune carriers
    but if people can get information and CORRECT UP TO DATE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION, that is good.
i am sure Doc Rowe would like to see his collected material available to more people.and publicised in a non commercial way

if wiki were set up correctly and did not have such contradictory rules then the work of doc rowe and the collecting material of nick dow would be available to more people, that has nothing to do with their personalities but to do with the MUSIC AND TRADTIONAL MATERIAL BEING available for more people to discover.
i dont know any folk stars that have contributed to this thread, they are people like myself who are interested in the music that is promoting tradtional music and tradtions AND LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE COLLECTED MATERIAL OF DOC ROWE AND NICK DOW IS PUBLICISED
I AM NOT INTERESTED IN PROMOTING THE MUSIC OF BUDDY HOLLY OR CLIFF PILCHARD THAT IS ALREADY DONE ELSEWHERE.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: DaveRo
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 05:02 AM

The main difficulty I've had is providing evidence for events which were pre-internet. I created a page about a British computer software company, founded in the 60s and which I joined in '74. It was very well-known and a pioneer in several fields. But there is very little online to link to and the result does not do the subject justice.

I found that one of the trade journals of the day had been digitised so I was able to screengrab a few articles and photos. (I had to justify using copyright material.) But most is or was on paper and some is behind academic firewalls - or even an Official Secret. I had hoped that people I worked with would find and add to it, but that hasn't happened, and many of the potential contributors are now dead.

So if you're creating a page about someone whose reputation was made in those pre-internet days be prepared to research paper records, old folk magazines or whatever, and maybe to put that online, by scanning articles and finding a website that'll post them. You need links! Your own knowledge is no use, unless you publish a memoir or article online.

Or just accept that, however noteworthy, some people or subjects are not worth the effort of getting into wikipedia.

The wikipedia editors are terribly pernikety. Even uncontroversial statements such as where my company was based get tagged 'citation required'. Ignore them; don't let them get you angry!

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,jim bainbridge
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.....

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:39 AM

Hi all - I'm confident that Wikipedia WILL accept a piece on Doc Rowe, and I'm going to try and submit one this week. He has ample prior references on other pages, including his receipt of both the Folklore Society's Coote Lake Medal, and the EFDSS Gold Badge.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:34 AM

I don't see any reason why Wikipedia would reject an article about Doc Rowe. He's very easy to document from corroborated sources. It would be a fair bit of work to put it all together, though.

You don't need to be a web designer to create their content. You just need to be patient about checking and proofreading what you add.

I gave up on it because I tried editing pages where there was an entrenched culture of idiocy with a vested interest in misinformation. The worst I've come across was stuff about the hazards of chemicals. Recognition of hazard varies around the world, and Wikipedia sticks strictly to the toxic legal code of the US. You cannot report any adverse effect of a product except on the say-so of an American pro-industry "regulator". The fact that every other national safety organization on earth won't let the stuff be sold doesn't count at all. You get the same sort of issue with the biographies if litigious celebrities. But I can't see that often being a problem with folk-related info. Dave Bulmer maybe.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:15 AM

ok let us now take Doc Rowe, what he has done, recording tradtions over many years is of immense worth , much more important than recording on an independent label , HE IS MISSING, AND PROBABLY WOULD NOT FIT ONE OF THEIR RIDICULOUS RULES AND CRITERIA.
WHO are these self appointed judges and what is their expertise on the subject, Yet they have pretentions to be providing a comprehensivesite on the uk folk revival. it is not the fault of contributors it would appear[ they are doing their best] but the fault of wiki itself.

before anyone come in with all guns blazing about bitching, just read carefully what i am saying, and what others have said and be realistic about the the limitations of wiki

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:03 AM

I can't remember adding it so maybe it was another 'Catter wot did it , but there is a link back to the 'Cat in the body of WMD's page. It is what the Web does best, connectivity.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 03:01 AM

Who are the people who have set wiki up and make these OUTDATED rules re the uk folk revival?
Let us look at a prominent uk folk perfotmer who is missing from Wiki Nick Dow
Nick has done extensive folk collecting all over the uk from travellers and non travellers as well as his own recording and performing
as far as i can see from wiki criteria, his collecting would not warrant his inclusion on wiki unless he had recorded several solo albums on an independent record label. excuse me but what is more important collcting tradtional songs or recording on an independent label.
What are wikis priorities, that is just feckin daft. Nick probably has recorded on an independent label, but if he had not
attention would not be brought to his collecting because he would not be mentioned by wiki.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 02:58 AM

What I found when starting a page on William Main Doerflinger was that moderators may be experts on Wikipedea but not on the subject in question. I got a rejection, at first, with a curt "not famous enough". My immediate reaction was amazement. His son has an entry and from my "bubble" totally out of proportion to his father's status.

Fortunately I persisted, listening to sensible moderators' comments, and with threads in this parish. That's when Tony Rees (thankyou) noticed and did some fettling on the WMD page. That's the point, anyone can add so it could happen that someone else changes your additions, so be sure of your data.

FWIW I often find pages when searching, say villages, where I can add an external reference to. In some cases, links to my own websites where there is a connection of interest. Two I do regularly are an audio memories of old Stroud where I can target the particular village. Ditto benchmarks.mister.red or Milestones/Boundary Stones (particularly now in Lock-Down).
The way I do it is to: log in, "edit", look at similar things, copy, paste, modify. And each page must work similarly, because there are multiple methodologies, IME.

BTW Wiki uses "an" HTML but it is not like any other I have come across. But it is my way of thanking Wikipedia.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 Mar 21 - 02:24 AM

stilly.
the work of unpaid volunteers means it is amateurish, compiled by amateurS. it is also unprofessional because it is not comprehensive.,
What is even more annoying it is pretentious , that is it purports to be professional, it pretends to be something it is not or has not yet achieved.
In both senses of the word it is amateurish ,1. that is it is compiled by unpaid volunteers it is also at the moment only giving limited information about performers in the uk folk revival,2 it is not comptrehensive and overall unprofessional, it is unprofessional because of the fact it is not comprehensive,BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION IT DOESNOT GIVE
As an encyclopedia it is not always reliable, therefore that aspect of it is also professional .
That does not mean that the content provided by Tony Rees is not accurate or of a professional standard. it means that it is lacking
because it is not comprehensive, and does not give a truly accurate reflection of uk folk performers .
this is to some exent the fault of wiki, with their outdated rules

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 05:50 PM

I've often found my right to do something exceeds my ability to do same rightly.

“Mr. Wales* said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic hot water.

“They say, “Please help me. I got an F** on my paper because I cited Wikipedia” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia.””
*Founder Jimmy Wales. **Bad

Wikipedia:Academic use - First sentence: Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic writing or research.

That's just for correctness. Complete, finished, all-inclusive &c &c aren't even up for discussion.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 05:49 PM

Dick raises the justifiable point about missing articles regarding arguably notable folk music performers, as indeed does the original poster in this thread (hence the thread title).

There does appear to be a mechanism to review such coverage, and possibly inspire contributions in the "missing article" space. The mechanism is via a WikiProject (Wikipedia project) entitled "Missing encyclopedic articles" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles). Under this project, an interested person can compile a list of topics (folk music performers in this instance) from a suitably "encyclopaedic" source (a suggestion, for pre-1993 acts at least, might be the "Guinness Who's Who of Folk Music"), as wikipedia links, which are then displayed in blue where an article with that name exists, and red if it does not (thus, a prompt for someone to maybe create it). For a non-musical example, see Missing encyclopedic articles/Encyclopaedia of the Viking Age. Such a list might go some way towards addressing concerns of non-comprehensive coverage such as expressed by Dick.

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...)

Of course all such resources have their own limitations. For example the "Guinness Who's Who" has an entry for Dick Miles (gasp) but not Lea Nicholson. But it would be another step along the road, maybe.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 04:52 PM

"The work of unpaid volunteers" does NOT mean it is amateur or unprofessional. It means people are taking time to post about things important to them and they may be professionals in their work hours. I know of groups of librarians and museum staff who have regular Wikipedia posting sessions to address this very issue. If you don't think the posts on Wikipedia are up to your standards, then post them yourself. And you will join the ranks of the passionate amateurs posting at Wikipedia.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 04:40 PM

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

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 03:19 PM

Following on from the above, anyone interested in what I *have* contributed to Wikipedia recently will find the list of my last 1,000 contributions here and here ... not much about folk music, quite a lot about Shirburn Castle (and dingoes)... a psychologist would not doubt have a field day analysing my thought processes.

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 02:55 PM

I think we have established from the above that Wikipedia is a community endeavour, with no one person responsible for the content. I agree that there are notable omissions - only last year I created a page for the Von Trapp Family, prompted by "The Sound of Music" coming around on Television for the umpteenth time ... yes there were pages on individual family members, but none for the original singing group, and the "real" family behind the story - now rectified.

I create or contribute to other pages as the fancy takes me, sometimes spurred by completely unrelated things - for example Shirburn Castle in Oxfordshire (inspired by glimpses of it on an episode of "Inspector Morse") or the Teignmouth Electron (sailing boat) - inspired by discovering its sad history. I created the bulk of the page "Harry Robertson (folk singer)" on discovering that I live near Ballina, home of the "Ballina Whalers" song of Harry's as popularised by Nic Jones... plus numerous other examples (who were the players that inspired the creation of Gibson Byrdland?)

No, I have not created pages for any notable concertina players since that is not my main interest (being mainly a guitarist) although as it happens I do (did) know Dave Townsend and Ralph Jordan well, and have albums by (among others) Tommy Williams, Lea Nicholson and Michael Hibbert on my shelf. Similarly I have not created any articles on saxophone players, or hurdy gurdy players, or lots of things; I leave that to others who may be motivated to do so, and have the time and/or interest in learning how to be a wikipedia contributor. For sure it is not for everyone and there is a learning curve, but it is amazing what some folk will do.

I agree with the sentiment expressed above that the Wikipedia criteria developed for notability of musicians is not an ideal fit with what "we" in the folk world might consider notable. However most persons we may like to see in Wikipedia, that do not yet have entries, must have received *some* independent press coverage (such as magazine articles) or have an entry in one of the printed books or encyclopedias about folk music, such as the 2 comprehensive volumes by Martin C. Strong (although his third one, covering Celtic music, regrettably never appeared), and/or pass the "2 or more albums on a "respected" label" test, so I think the field is pretty wide open for wikipedia expansion in this regard, and, again as previously stated, would encourage further interested parties to "have a go".

Regards to all - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 02:40 PM

Jeri .i object to you using the term bitching, you are missing the point wiki pretends to be something it is not , it is not comprehensive it is not professional[it is formulated by unpaid volunteers] yet it sets outdated rules,and purports to have high standards, it is pretentious yet in ths particular case it does not offer comprehensive representation of the uk folk revival, it does not give an accurate comprehensive picture
it is not easy to fix, jeri wikipedia is not a truly collective thing its a curates egg, it uis not a reliable dictionary at all

"I believe Wikipedia look down on people trying to submit pages relating to themselves, or indeed trying to edit them." quote
how the hell is that collective .Jeri

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 01:21 PM

Dick, all I'm saying is you maybe shouldn't bitch about nobody doing what you're unwilling to do.

Wikipedia is a collective thing. If you find something lacking, FIX IT.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 12:25 PM

A couple of quick comments to add -

I believe Wikipedia look down on people trying to submit pages relating to themselves, or indeed trying to edit them. A friend was put in Wiki jail with a temporary ban, for attempting to correct the page about his own music.

Secondly - as Tony Rees says, the 'notability threshold' they use can be quite a high bar to clear. One of the best ways to help to ensure that a new page you may create is accepted by moderators, is if the subject you're intending to write about is already referenced on other pages.

By way of an example - I'm thinking of writing a page on the folklorist Christina Hole, who has no page at present; but if you search Wikipedia for her name, she already appears many times as her writings have been quoted on other pages, focused on the customs she documented and analysed.

If your chosen subject doesn't have that prior presence, in advance of trying to create a page for them there's value in 'seeding' mention of them elsewhere. For example, if I try to write a page for Tony Rose, to help that along I might edit Dolly Collins's page to note her contribution to 'On Banks of Green Willow'. Tony's work with Nic Jones is thankfully already mentioned on Nic's Wiki.

Thirdly, to re-emphasise what Tony Rees and others state - I'm posting to encourage *all* forum users with time and inclination, plus the subject knowledge and tech confidence, to contribute.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: pattyClink
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 12:14 PM

You know it does sort of go across the folk grain to have the 'notable ' rule. So if someone was world-wide famous 'for 15 minutes', they are in. Or if they have celebrity status for whatever reason. But if someone labors along in small clubs and homes and fairs for a lifetime keeping the music alive, nope. Pretty nonsensical for folk/trad.

That said, yes we do need to work up some new entries, perhaps relating the sagas of how it goes here on the 'cat. ?

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: r.padgett
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 11:10 AM

So I am not sure quite what you are saying.

"Of course if there are online video recordings of relevance, once identified, they can easily be linked (by any wikipedia editor, or in fact anyone) to the articles in question."

My comments should be clear, but what I am saying is that little video footage seems to have been made and tv certainly has shown little of the folk genre from the times I mention above ~also folk of the era seems largely singer song writer

wiki information is dependent on what was made and is now in the public domain ~I also ask WHY that was and make a certain political reason ~ who knows??

Ray

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 10:38 AM

Jeri, I have a website www.dickmiles.com that is there for the purpose of selling cds etc.
what, i am saying amongst other things is that the criteria for having an entry is out dated.
2. i have enough to do without doing other professional performers entries,
3 wiki tries to give the impression thtat it is comprehensive and at this stage it is not.
4. however this night change if perfomers who are missing are sufficiently computer savvy to do this orhave the journalistic skills which i do not , of course some of the older perfomers are not, and why should they be?
their skills lie in playing music not being journalists.
I have every right to criticise something that appears to be or gives the impression of being comprehensive when it is not
5. for all these reasons i think[personally] it is more important to have a website than a wiki entry, of course if someone who has journalistic skills, wishes to do this for me i would be happy about it.
6Jeri as usual you make assumptions that i have not tried or that other performers have not tried, we are musicians not journalists , when i want a website i go to a website designer. something i cannot do myself.
7. we have to do what we are skilled at.why should a musician be expected to be a journalist or a website designer

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jeri
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 10:01 AM

In short, you can't complain about what "somebody" hasn't included when "somebody" is you, and you haven't bothered to try.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,Phil d'Conch
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 09:57 AM

Sandman:

So , since you do the wiki reviews on folk musicians and singers , you make the decision on who you include on wiki.,sois it your decision as to who you include on wiki?
I find it unfathomable that you have not included....

Well it is a post that is factually accurate, there are glaring obvious omissions...

Not even. Wiki does not engage in prior restraint. It's not even possible. ie: A subject, any subject, cannot be excluded until it after it has been (improperly) included.

What you don't know about the work flow is the only problem you have at present.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 09:24 AM

Jumping to the bottom here to point out that Wikipedia is a place where YOU can add content if you think it needs to be there.

-30-

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 08:56 AM

Tirade?,
Well it is a post that is factually accurate, there are glaring obvious omissions, but in fairness it is composed by volunteer enthusiastic amateurs, so one must expect some degree of amateurishness, Tony, by your own admission you are partly responsible for some entries.
Therefore, it is what it is, at present limited, in its information,and not a comprehensive up to date professional picture of the uk folk revival in 2021
plus one must query one of the criteria for an entry, why? well ..in 2021 most top peformers produce their own recordings, this was an idea that was started by MacColl/Seeger, to avoid getting ripped off by recording businessmen, sadly not everyone did this and some got ripped off by Bulmer and others
So the necessity in 2021 for perfomers to be refused an entry because they have produced their own recordings is outdated

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 07:16 AM

Doc Rowe would be a high priority because he has so many links across the folk scene.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 06:43 AM

Dick, I find your tirade somewhat strange. I do not write or control Wikipedia (which has its own policies, not set by me), although I have contributed some articles to it. Blaming me for something that is not my creation is simply odd. As for omissions, it is for the world of interested parties to fill them, which is something that I and the original poster attempt to encourage. Just sayin'... Perhaps you can get your facts right before sounding off here any further.

Cordially - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 05:42 AM

I find it remarkable how many noted concertina singers players are not mentioned on wiki.Steve Turner Lea Nicholson Roy Clinging Robert Harbron Dick Miles Dave Townsend, does someone have it in for players of accidental collisions, watch out for your bellows.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 04:53 AM

In your example, "doing gigs for 45 years plus and having run folk clubs and a festival" does not automatically qualify a person for inclusion as a Wikipedia article subject, but if they have done something notable enough to have an article written about them by a third party elsewhere, and/or satisfied one of the other criteria as mentioned above, that should do the trick... quote
   
So , since you do the wiki reviews on folk musicians and singers , you make the decision on who you include on wiki.,sois it your decision as to who you include on wiki?
I find it unfathomable that you have not included Tony Rose ,Doc Rowe, Bob Copper Pete Coe Tony Hall Nick Dow Richard Grainger
So, you decide who you consider important enough to be included in wiki. it sounds like you are saying that my contribution to the uk folk scene is not notable enough to warrant inclusion.
WIKI is written by amatuers [volunteeres without pay] about professionals,
we are back to the same scenario, as the amateurs who wrote reviews about professional musicians gigs and cds, and in effect have a say in their musical careers, the scenario of one persons subjective opinion,    ...fortunately with the advent of internet listening you tube etc the power of journalistic reviewers has diminished.

Tony,
in the past i have done all five of the following requirements
Key to these are (1) "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", and/or (5) "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)", and/or (12 "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network
1 The Observer book of Folk Music.Article in The Living Tradition, Folk Roundabout etc Mardles etc etc
5 recordings with so called independent notables, Martin Carthy Jez Lowe Sara Grey and/ or 12. Folk on 2 several times, Anglia Television
I have in fact answered all the above criteria Iawait your response with anticipation, however i feel i might might be rather like waiting for a no53 bus
yours cordially not Tunbridge Wells

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 04:11 AM

Hi Ray, at least some of these already have articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewan_MacColl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._L._Lloyd

As well as this overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_folk_revival

(None of these anything to do with my efforts)

So I am not sure quite what you are saying.

Of course if there are online video recordings of relevance, once identified, they can easily be linked (by any wikipedia editor, or in fact anyone) to the articles in question.

Regards - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: r.padgett
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 03:39 AM

I have seen little in the way of the revivalist singers from the 1950s 60s and 70s ~ the likes of Ewan, Bert and the early folk club artists mentioned above ~ maybe the powers that be thought they would all go away shortly, of course the Communists were not flavour of the month in US with Pete Seeger, the Almanacs, the Weavers ~ Woody Guthrie and CND etc which may not have helped the recording of British singers ~more tendency to look towards the singer songwriters of the era
The song history seems to be all around the "revival" perhaps lost for ever or not recorded ~ which is a pity ~ I know that audio recordings were made in folk clubs but what about early visual recordings that could be collated and shown and committed to the folk song historical archive

Ray

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 02:18 AM

Hi Dick, I suspect that perhaps you are referring to something other than Wikipedia?? n any case, from the "about Wikipedia" page:

" - Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia project helping to create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge

- Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay

- Wikipedia is a live collaboration differing from paper-based reference sources in important ways. It is continually created and updated, with articles on new events appearing within minutes, rather than months or years. Because everybody can help improve it, Wikipedia has become more comprehensive than any other encyclopedia."

The only limitation on Wikipedia articles are that the subjects have to satisfy some criteria of "notability", in other words, reliable secondary sources (other than the subject or person concerned) have deemed that they are worth writing about; otherwise every person in the world could have an entry (which is not the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e. it is not a directory).

In my experience, Wikipedia articles are useful in that they are a single point to collate (and in some cases, make sense of) otherwise scattered, published information existing "somewhere", as well as propagate it to the world. Hence the original poster's desire, to see more articles about noteworthy folk musicians, so that information on them becomes more widely disseminated and recognised outside our "folk" silo, where appropriate of course, as well as providing an education resource for present and future interested persons.

In your example, "doing gigs for 45 years plus and having run folk clubs and a festival" does not automatically qualify a person for inclusion as a Wikipedia article subject, but if they have done something notable enough to have an article written about them by a third party elsewhere, and/or satisfied one of the other criteria as mentioned above, that should do the trick...

I was a bit sceptical about the value and quality of wikipedia content until around 2006, by which time it had been going for 5 years and was beginning to provide a useful place to look up various technical terms useful for my employmennt, and was pleasantly surprised at how far it had got, on a voluntary contribution basis. Now it is better still of course, but still many slightly lesser known (but arguably notable) persons can be missing from its coverage. It is up to suitably motivated individuals to carry on adding and improving content as they feel the urge, and have time available. Personally I enjoy the challenge, on occasion, of doing the required background sleuthing either to improve a current article, or create a new one from scratch. - keeps my brain alive. I also enjoy singing and playing - the 2 (or 3) are not mutually exclusive!

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Mar 21 - 12:34 AM

No , I suppose having been involved doing gigs for 45 years plus and having run folk clubs and a festival, I should be mentioned.
I understand that people set the wiki up themselves.Frankly i would rather spend my time at the moment playing music supprting folk clubs by doing virtual zooms . what is the point of being famous in the folk world if there are no folk clubs left

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: cnd
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 08:48 PM

Yes Tony, you were the person I had in mind.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 08:30 PM

Tony,

Brian was probably the most important member of The Bushwhackers, he was the peacemaker & provided the beat with his lagerphone.

He is also important in that pic - he hadn't allowed a broken bone to keep him from the gig! Tho Cecil played his lagerphone to keep them on the beat.

sandra

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 06:44 PM

I am presuming the "mudcat person with wikipedia experience" alluded to a few posts back was myself...

You might like to see this example article for Australian traditional singer Sally Sloane as one that is somewhat more fleshed-out than the Bob Fox one, also something I have created reasonably recently (since one's writing style adapts to the nature of the medium over time, hopefully). Good luck to all who venture down the Wikipedia contributions path!

- Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 05:55 PM

Sounds good ... the hardest part is walking the fine line between what others will agree (over time) is of general / educational interest to the world outside, and what is really trivia ... I may have overstepped it myself in the Bushwhackers article, where I wrote: "Brian Loughlin (obscured) was seated behind Kempster; his left leg (with carpet slipper) is just visible in this photograph.", but hey, one man's trivia is another man's vital information perhaps :)

Cheers - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 04:08 PM

Thanks Tony, this is really useful. I think I'm going to attempt one for Doc Rowe, then perhaps Bob Copper. If no-one else does, I might try a Tony Rose one, too!

I actually found your Bob Fox page at the weekend, when looking to see whether Benny Graham (a 2020 EFDSS Gold Badge winner) had a page of his own. I think the only Wiki-presence he has is the mention of his and Bob's collaborations on the page you wrote.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 02:47 PM

RE the above: I should add that Wikipedia articles can / should include images, but only those that have (generally) been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (a separate operation) under an appropriate licence, so as to be freely re-usable(generally with attribution). So as a parallel activity, I have digitised a number of my folk and other music-related images (as well as those in other realms) and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, such that I and others can use them in Wikipedia articles and anywhere else (for current list see this link), and I would strongly encourage others to do the same, unless you plan to extract commercial revenue from them down the track (not a consideration in my case: more an effort to avoid loss to posterity in due course, when all my possessions are sent to the tip or the nearest charity shop on my demise...)

Regards - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Tony Rees
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 01:57 PM

I have created and/or extended (from bare bones) a number of Wikipedia articles in the past, for folk (and other) based artists. To avoid controversy and the possibility of deletion, it is necessary to establish that the subject is "notable" by Wikipedia standards (I have on occasion fallen foul of this). Key to these are (1) "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", and/or (5) "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)", and/or (12 "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network" (these are a subset of 12 criteria set out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)). Most of the persons mentioned above would have no trouble meeting these criteria, I would say.

I am pretty busy at the moment on other tasks of a public service nature (science not music) but offer the above as a hint to others who may be interested. Note that there is plenty of scope for using Wikipedia as a "holding place" for relevant info providing that it can all be adequately sourced; or even a "bare bones" start can be useful for others to carry further.

Pages I have created or added to generally start off small (ish) but can grow into something more extensive. For an example small one, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Fox_(musician); for something longer (more of an essay / mini research project!) see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bushwhackers_(band) .

Once something is created, others may well jump in over time and extend or, sometimes, delete / change portions of your work, but them's the breaks, and it is best not to get too hung up on that unless one views the changes as definitely undesirable and is prepared to argue the toss.

Regards - Tony

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: cnd
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 01:51 PM

There's a user here who's contributed to several folk-related Wiki threads who may chime in, but I can't recall their name atm

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 01:46 PM

Cheers Jack, I browse Folkopedia too, but I do feel it would be good to ensure that folk isn't hidden in a corner - there's so much to be gained in terms of interest and awareness from the warren of Wiki-rabbit holes formed by having present, well-linked content on that major platform.

Also, I'm not suggesting that people submit primary content, anecdotes, reminisces etc, which as you say would be neither accepted by, nor appropriate for, Wikipedia. But, people with the levels of knowledge found on these boards are superbly well-positioned to make accurate, well-sourced/thoroughly referenced contributions to the Wikiverse.

Subject: RE: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 01:38 PM

Wikipedia doesn't accept primary source material.

Use Folkopedia instead?

Subject: Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?
From: GUEST,BlackAcornUK
Date: 29 Mar 21 - 01:29 PM

Hello all - I keep noticing how many important figures from the English folk music and dance community are without Wikipedia pages of their own;

I first began to register this when searching for individuals who turned out to be lacking named entries - including Bob Copper, Phoebe Smith, Tony Rose and Pete, Chris & Sue Coe, to name but 6.

In addition, I note that many recipients of EFDSS's Gold Badge Award are also lacking their own entry - including the likes of Dr Ian Russell and Malcolm Taylor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Folk_Dance_and_Song_Society#EFDSS_Gold_Badge_Awards

...This forum is a goldmine of authoritative (and often first-hand) knowledge of these and other luminaries, which might yet be lost if not captured over the next decade or two... It could be a vital contribution to the legacy of the UK folk community, to harness this expertise within a universal platform like Wikipedia.

Do any of you actively contribute to Wikipedia at the moment - on folk-related topics, or anything else?

Thanks for any/all thoughts on the matter!