Matthew Brown wrote:
I think that any band who would be included in a specialist encyclopedia of their genre/era should be included on Wikipedia, at least briefly. No need for lots of unverifiable detail.
Agreed! I originally thought of Wikipedia as the world's best general encyclopedia. Britannica++, I guess. But now I think of it as the union of all the plausible specialist encyclopedias. As long as we can verify the material, naturally.
It's fun to browse through Amazon's listing of circa 32,000 things in their encyclopedia category:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_9/?rh=n%3A21%2Cn%3A11713
Not all of these are what I'd call encyclopedias. But it does make me wonder how are coverage is on grasses for livable landscapes, or Russian criminal tattoos, both of which have their own encyclopedias.
William