---

Posted by PuP on 08-13-2005 at22:54:

  Wikipedia

If you haven't checked out the Wikipedia yet, you should know that it is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So if you know something about a subject that isn't in the Wikipedia, you can add it. If you know something about a subject already in the Wikipedia, you can make changes to the existing entry or add new stuff to it.

That greatly simplifies the Wikipedia but leads to my point. The Daniel Amos entry seems insufficient for such an influential and important band. (Compare to The Beatles for example.) Some of you Danielphiles could surely fix that problem, could you not?

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 08-14-2005 at00:38:

 

---

Posted by Jerry Davison on 08-14-2005 at01:39:

 

Cool site! I never saw it before. I spenta little time fixing some mistakes on the Jacob's Trouble page!

---

Posted by dorfsmith on 08-14-2005 at01:50:

 

Cool, there is still nothing there for dorfsmith

---

Posted by Audiori J on 08-14-2005 at02:46:

 

Yeah we used to go there and do some posting, one major frustration is that you can put something in and someone else can come along and change it if they think its not true....and back and forth. Its a good idea as a whole...and for things like bands its great. But for any religious or controversial subject there will be an endless back and forth of the changing of definitions.

For a subject like the Lost Dogs or 77s or DA...it would be very cool to make it as in depth as possible.

---

Posted by bereal on 08-14-2005 at21:07:

 

I've been over there and am in the process of making a few changes myself.

---

Posted by audiori on 08-15-2005 at02:30:

 

It can be pretty fun. Especially if you stick to weird topics that most of those folks know nothing about - like DA, the Choir, 77s, etc...

They used to have (maybe they still do) a "Most wanted articles" page.. it was created by the server itself based on the number of links that a non-existant article received. So if 150 articles linked to an "Andy Griffith" article that didn't exist, it would move up the "most wanted" list.

So, for a while, I was randomly picking topics out of that list and challenging myself to write an article about whatever it was... an old actor or some weird invention or whatever. The general rule is "NPOV" which means (no point of view).. so you can't say "This invention is really exciting" or "This is the best invention ever." You have to write it based on facts alone, and you can't fill it with opinion (unless it was quoted from another person - but even then, you were supposed to use it sparingly - usually under the heading of "popular opinion of.." or something like that). It was sometimes fun to write a fair, respectful article about a person that you may not even like...

What got annoying was this... say you spent a few days working on an article about Andy Griffith (not one I actually wrote... just as example).... you might do a little research on his life... talk about his parents, where he was born... early jobs.. how he got into TV.. the start of the Andy Griffith Show.. etc... Then you might talk about the popularity of the show - what kind of ratings or awards it received, etc.

THen, like clockwork, what would happen was.. some guy (or a few people) - usually from another country - would stumble upon the article... by some weird twist of fate, they would have an unreasonable hatred of Andy Griffith. So they would be on a mission from that point on to destroy your article. One of them might just try deleting all of the text you added... then the next guy might find some weird website that claims Andy was in the KKK or something and post that in the article. You remove it and try to explain that the source is questionable at best and they try to have an edit war with you and insist that it's a good source. Since technically - they have just as much right to write in the article as you do - there's really very little that can be done to stop it unless you can reason with them (fat chance).

Then, they'll start digging up any negative comment about Andy Griffith they can find... and they'll add it as quotes.. "Larry King said..." or "Naomi Judd said..." NO matter how unnecessary they are to a person's bio, they fight to keep them there arguing that they're important to the historical view of the person. Pretty soon, the article that you were just trying to have some fun with has turned into a weird Andy Griffith smear website. After a while... that stuff made me less enthusiastic about writing anything there.

---

Posted by PuP on 06-16-2006 at22:26:

 

I just got around to looking at the DA article again. You guys have done a nice job with it. Looks like the idiots have stopped fighting your changes.

---

Posted by Squidzit on 06-21-2006 at22:41:

 

quote:

Originally posted by dorfsmith Cool, there is still nothing there for dorfsmith

You have to look under the keyword "Odd".

---

Posted by ftg3plus4 on 06-22-2006 at11:06:

 

quote:

Originally posted by Audiori J for any religious or controversial subject there will be an endless back and forth of the changing of definitions.

Yeah, I ran into that. I saw an article with a strong anti-Biblical slant (yet carefully written to sound "unbiased") and attempted to make a few subtle changes so it would be more fairly balanced. It reverted back to its original form so fast I'd swear it happened automatically.

But I have had fun adding details and correcting errors in articles about bands I like (not the obvious ones other DAMBers would edit).

---

Posted by bereal on 06-22-2006 at20:10:

 

quote:

Originally posted by Squidzit quote: Originally posted by dorfsmith Cool, there is still nothing there for dorfsmith You have to look under the keyword "Odd".