True, true. That might also have been an explanation ;-)
Actually, I did not flag the 'minor edit' check button. It seems to me that incorrectly alleging some particular economic or industrial lineage to the family is a major issue, hence removing it is also major. Of course, the reason for the Original Sin was minor too, as it often is, but see how it upset the poor lady! Besides (and this is probably documented), 'facts change' is major, compared to, say, updating an expired link.
I do hope that next time somebody is headed down by Churchgate side, they will take a few minutes to drop by the Music Department office and assure her that the reference has been corrected - not by some overlord, but just another member of the community, which she can also join. If time permits, they can log in and show her how every editing step is always open to public audit. I'm sure that after years at Mumbai University and at the Bhatkhande Music University, this will be an eye-opener for her.
Vickram
The media and Wikipedia have a convoluted relationship: http://xkcd.com/978/
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Vickram Crishna <vvcrishna@radiophony.com> wrote:The Tribune link (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001107/cth2.htm|accessdate=5%20April%202009) was wrong, it needs the extension deleted. I note that there is another unreachable or unlisted reference - [7] - which needs updating.
On 8 Jan 2014 11:03, "Mahitgar from Marathi Wikipedia" <mahitgar@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
The problem is with Indian Media and newspaper industry.Earlier times Cheif editors and Subeditors used to insist and guide for crossconfirmation of the information being collected and that is part and parcle of journalists primary responsibility.
As far as Mahitgar's comment is concerned, I am not sure why any of us should lose any sleep over the practices or standards of newspapers :-)No doubt even wiki editors can make mistakes but atleast on wiki one can make corrections.How one will make corrections in newspaper report ? If journalist of a news paper has made a mistake,people need to ask the media editors first.Wikipedia is just a seondary source of info.As much a journalist has made a mistake , it is equally mistaken to blame internet and wikipedia blindly.I suppose.Why are we discussing this 'in the air'? It should just have been corrected right away. If the opportunity (ie Internet access) was available, it could have been corrected right in front of her. What better way to demonstrate the participatory power of the world's best and most accessible source of information to a sceptic? I think that this lady, or some of her students, might have become Wikipedians themselves!
Once I read the original Tribune report, the reason for the error became obvious. The original English is poor usage and could be misinterpreted, which is clearly what happened in this case: [She belongs to the well-known family of Kolhapur, which apart from its sugar mills, is also famous for its sweet music.] actually means that Kolhapur is famous for sugar mills and sweet music). Please let us assign blame where blame lies, or else hold our peace (always the better option).
On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 6:06 AM, jayant kirtane <j_kirtane@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello,Yesterday I met Smt Shruti Sadolikar, musician, in the Music Department of Mumbai University located in the rear of Churchgate station. In a discussion with PhD students, a question was raised regarding the reliability of citing internet references. Some of us gave examples about how Wikipedia was used all over the world for all kinds of reasons. Smt Sadolikar, who was present, gave an instance of wrong information in Wikipedia:"Sadolikar was born 1951 into a family from Kolhapur which was known for its musical tradition and owning sugar mills.[3][4] " in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shruti_Sadolikar. She said that "a hundred people" had mentioned the bit about owning sugar mills. This was factually incorrect, and gave the wrong impression that she came from an affluent family.Now [4] is a newspaper article: Tandon, Aditi, "Three days of rich musical treat", The Tribune, 6 November 2000. I looked up the source, and sure enough, it mentions the sugar mills. So it seems that whoever wrote the article merely repeated a factual error in the source (which has been properly cited as [4] ).Smt Sadolikar's father and guru was a musician, Marathi stage artist, music director, etc. His Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wamanrao_Sadolikar makes no mention of sugar mills.Smt Sadolikar had a point to make: if Wikipedia is to put information about her in the public domain, is it not their responsibility to inform her about it and confirm that the information is factual? Some of us had said that Wikipedia was not organized along the principles of, say, a newspaper, but if a factual error was brought to its notice, it would be corrected. In that spirit I am sending this mail to your mailing list.Like the rest of the world I am a grateful user and great fan of Wikipedia.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-in-mum mailing list
Wikimedia-in-mum@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-mum