[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

[charles matthews]

"David Gerard" wrote

> (And in my experience as what sociologists use as a primary source
> [music journalism], peer-reviewed academia on pop music is an
> incredibly low-quality source of information or indeed clue.)

That rings true.  I don't particularly want to wade through yards of 
well-footnoted stuff on Jimi Hendrix or Captain Beefheart, which is all 
drivel and wrong and written by someone who couldn't hum a twelve-bar to 
save their life.

You could look at it this way, though.  If WP manages to evolve a credible, 
principles model of how to document and categorise and calibrate popular 
culture, and exhibitis it in action on its (certainly wide) range of 
included topics, then that could be a huge achievement in itself.  One does 
have to bear in mind the basic principles: Sturgeon's Law on 90% of 
everything; Simon Frith on popular culture being defined by anyone being 
allowed their taste in the matter; objections to canon-formation; original 
research being the inevitable condition of the author; ephemerality of much 
of the interest.

Charles