Key folk figures absent from Wikipedia?

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