http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23422157-5014239,00.html
Interesting in general. Something I'm not sure about is the "tens of thousands" stat, although since that doesn't include songs/albums it could be likely.
In any case, being up there with All Music Guide in what AMG *does* is pretty cool.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23422157-5014239,00.html
Interesting in general.
It also displays ignorance about Wikipedia:
"Anyone can contribute to a given article on Wikipedia, but their contributions must first be checked by team of volunteer editors with a particular passion about the subject before the text appears live."
Someone already pointed this rather serious error out in the comments.
Yeah, I commented, linking to our COI policy, as did [[User:Daniel]]. This was brought up at [[WP:AWNB]] so I'm guessing a few other Wikipedians have gone in there to defend the motherland, so to speak.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23422157-5014239,00.html
Interesting in general.
It also displays ignorance about Wikipedia:
"Anyone can contribute to a given article on Wikipedia, but their contributions must first be checked by team of volunteer editors with a particular passion about the subject before the text appears live."
Someone already pointed this rather serious error out in the comments.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 24/03/2008, Alex G g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I commented, linking to our COI policy, as did [[User:Daniel]]. This was brought up at [[WP:AWNB]] so I'm guessing a few other Wikipedians have gone in there to defend the motherland, so to speak.
The main thing I'd love people to go in there and link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Photo_submission
We need non-sucky promos under a free license.
- d.
Alex wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
It also displays ignorance about Wikipedia: "Anyone can contribute to a given article on Wikipedia, but their contributions must first be checked by team of volunteer editors with a particular passion about the subject before the text appears live."
Yeah, I commented, linking to our COI policy, as did [[User:Daniel]].
This was the bit that got me:
...because of Wikipedia's low profile relative to the MySpace hype machine, many artists and their managers remain ignorant of the resources available to them.
"There's been many people I've talked to that didn't even know they could upload a Wikipedia page," Mr Lenac said.
Wikipedia may be a resource, but it's not *that* kind of resource!
Fortunately someone else (also from the music industry, no less) got it right:
"(Wikipedia is) rooted in fact. It's not promotional. Especially these days when the internet is full of artists trying to essentially ram their message down your throat, I think a fan is a lot more receptive to a simple, no-hype approach."
Steve Summit wrote:
Fortunately someone else (also from the music industry, no less) got it right:
"(Wikipedia is) rooted in fact. It's not promotional. Especially these days when the internet is full of artists trying to essentially ram their message down your throat, I think a fan is a lot more receptive to a simple, no-hype approach."
This is an interesting comment. Could it lead to a response from the music industry about our use of album covers. That has been a thorny issue for a long time. An understanding with the music industry could more easily put that issue to bed.
Ec
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
Fortunately someone else (also from the music industry, no less) got it right:
"(Wikipedia is) rooted in fact. It's not promotional. Especially these days when the internet is full of artists trying to essentially ram their message down your throat, I think a fan is a lot more receptive to a simple, no-hype approach."This is an interesting comment. Could it lead to a response from the music industry about our use of album covers. That has been a thorny issue for a long time. An understanding with the music industry could more easily put that issue to bed.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can't honestly imagine them putting their album covers under GFDL or CC-BY-SA, but if we could get one of the most notorious anti-sharing industries out there to do it, I'm all for it. How would you propose to approach them about it? I think we might even have better luck approaching individual bands who own album covers (though this would be better if we did not allow the nonfree versions, the number of free images of living people skyrocketed once we started disallowing nonfree ones).
On 24/03/2008, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I can't honestly imagine them putting their album covers under GFDL or CC-BY-SA, but if we could get one of the most notorious anti-sharing industries out there to do it, I'm all for it. How would you propose to approach them about it? I think we might even have better luck approaching individual bands who own album covers (though this would be better if we did not allow the nonfree versions, the number of free images of living people skyrocketed once we started disallowing nonfree ones).
Yep. That's why I suspect that starting with requesting good promo pictures under a free licence is likely to meet with more immediate success.
(I'm currently putting placeholder images on every living bio I can find without an image. One side effect I'd quite like this to have is to make our jargon meaning of "free" more normative.)
- d.
----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com Date: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:01 am
Alex wrote: Fortunately someone else (also from the music industry, no less) got it right:
"(Wikipedia is) rooted in fact. It's not promotional. Especially these days when the internet is full of artists trying to essentially ram their message down your throat, I think a fan is a lot more receptive to a simple, no-hype approach."
This is one of the major reasons I wince when people argue that deleting an article about a movie or TV show or song is fine because it's already covered on some other dedicated website or wiki. Wikipedia does its content _better_.
On 3/24/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
"Anyone can contribute to a given article on Wikipedia, but their contributions must first be checked by team of volunteer editors with a particular passion about the subject before the text appears live."
Someone already pointed this rather serious error out in the comments.
Although it's not true, it would probably be better for us if people thought that were the case. I think.
Steve
On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:29 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/24/08, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
"Anyone can contribute to a given article on Wikipedia, but their contributions must first be checked by team of volunteer editors with a particular passion about the subject before the text appears live."
Someone already pointed this rather serious error out in the comments.
Although it's not true, it would probably be better for us if people thought that were the case. I think.
Aww! Let's be proud of how Wikipedia works. One reason Wikipedia is so magnificent is because it's living proof that the "go live right now" style really can work.
Ben