 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 327 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613477 Today 3 Topics 127503 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
To me it's hardly relevant James is born in Ireland. go fuck yourself big |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Please contribute and help to edit the Aphex Twin article from a B grade one to an A class one, eh? What do you say? Let's edit the article with this B to A goal in mind! Joyrex (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)" - Wiki Talk: Aphex Twin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But surely the only proper way to do such a thing in an encyclopaedic article is to write, not that he has been called so, but which artists have actually mentioned having been, or are believed to have been, influenced by the man? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
absolutely. (although that might give too great an impression on readers, since it's in the OPENING PARAGRAPH, OH LAWD NO) sources for radiohead and vsnares shouldn't be difficult to find. go biggie go! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Leave big alone - you know the point he's making and you're deliberately making it look like he's a twat. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I love Big, but Porick's right, the statement isn't being presented as FACT, and as it's a subjective statement anyway, it can't be FACT, there's no one singular influence or purveyor of any.. genre. Oh I read Wiki, saw Dicky was the best, discarded all other music like, I don't know, Grinning Ape and Flashbulb. I mean, do i fucking sue Wiki? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The opening paragraph is the most important part of a wiki page, it must sum up the whole article and it must be correct. A incidental fact, like some stupid online article named aphex twin the most influential shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. I am pretty fine however with calling him influential, if it's based on a proper source however. There's this thing I learned in music history, music history epistomology if you will. That is: you can only judge an artist to be influential after his time has been, because then you can judge more objectively which other artists he has influenced. Now I'm not saying you can't say that now already, and it's different with pop music (this fast developing music), but you should be careful. Therefor: call him influential on a proper source or say this whay I'm proposing on the talk-page now: "Many artists have said they've been influenced by the music of Aphex Twin. Many critics have applauded the innovativeness of his sound". Because this is factual. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think I understand why people think this sentence is correct, but I think it should be better. A quote is not only a cop-out but un-encyclopedic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what's going to happen is this: I'm going to change the sentence to my proposed sentence it's going to be reverted to the old sentence, I start a straw-poll, I lose, I cry |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Big, it's wikipedia, everyone aknowledges it's full of shit. I know, now, kind of what you're saying, that it should just be FACTS, whether I agree would depend on whether I care, which I don't. But yerr, ok, I see what you're saying, I mean, if it said "Richard D James, aka Aphex Twin, has been reported as being an inconsiderate lover" in the first sentence, or indeed any sentence, it's not... well, hang on, a lot of "factual" compilations include trivial tidbits, ... I thikn Wiki should say "Dan used to really like RDJ but now finds him a bit hard fucking going, a couple of The Tuss tracks are good but, ho ho ho, apparently that's not Dicky, so, ... I've stopped caring" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Wikipedia is not full of shit.. go look at some of the scientific and astronomical articles.. they are fantastically presented, very interesting, and factual. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it makes school easy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The fact it has to be edited every five seconds by someone suggests to me no one knows what the fuck they're on about. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not upset. I like wikipedia alot, I look up alot and I'm always relieved by the fact that these articles are pretty high standard and that I didn't have to do anything about that. Somehow this article is a thorn in my sight nonetheless, I like caring about it. I like the pure quest for knowledge. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm sure you've waded through every single Wikipedia article to gauge the average time between edits and then compiled a nice spreadsheet. But... there are some great articles on Wikipedia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
marlowe for ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have and it's massive |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Big, It's not just from "some online website", it's from the bloody guardian, a well-established English newspaper. It's just as worthy and valuable a quote as one from news.bbc.co.uk (oh dear, it's a website, what now) Also, my point still stands. There was no need for an edit in the first place, the sentence was entirely factual and NPOV. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, if the introduction is the most important part of the wiki, then why is it 2 measley sentences long? Perhaps look at the articles I quoted before, on The Beatles, Rolling stones, Black Sabbath, and see how their entire careers have been given a brief summary in the introduction |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"the sentence was entirely factual" Hardly. In court, you'd call it hearsay, even with a source. There was a (short) discussion about this in a newspaper here a while back, and I've been thinking about it for a while.. wikipedia could be so much better than it is, but only if they got over themselves and actually started listening more to people who know what they're on about instead of their introductory course textbooks. It's good that big (*hugz*) is actually trying to put his education to use in educating other people, and it is a sort of responsibility that we all share. I once tried living up to that philosophy by editing an article on a philosopher. The article was 90% biographical bullshit while the philosophy itself got a note towards the bottom. I added some information. The next day, "they" had reverted to the previous version without giving any explanation at all. I tried again, and they just reverted again. I tried a different article, the same happened. Bottom line is, Wikipedia turns out to be not much more than a conglomerate of all the world's introductory course books because the people who have only done the introductory courses are the majority (at least they appear to be the majority of the wiki editors). So, basically, if it isn't introductory course material, they won't accept it. After what I added was apparently added to some introductory course book, however, it was added to the wiki article, but with awful spelling and punctuation, but you can't even fix that without the anonymous mafia reverting to "their" version. Ownership is a big part of the wiki community apparently, and if someone's written something, they'll keep close tabs on it to make sure it isn't appropriated by someone else. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the sentence is entirely factual. it says that he has been described as (not that he is) the most inventive/influential artist, and the link to the article containing the quote is proof that he has been described in that way. the wikipedia entry makes no claim about how true the description is, so, as porick has said, the discussion in this thread about how inventive and influential he has been is irrelevant. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Strange, you'd think that people writing articles for Wikipedia are first and foremost interested in the quality of information available there. Could this be just another palce to mark one's territory? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this is very frustrating |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that wasn't meant to be a follow-up. disregard that. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed anyway, i'm amazed that people could miss the point so badly |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:( @ people failing to learn to read |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
'he has been described as...' it's just poor, my proposition is better and, like I said, besides poor it's misquoted because in the guardian article, it's used to lure people in. The article's message is 'This is the most important figure in electronic music, yet he is a totally loopy guy' because that's what people like to read. The wiki could be better. The source for calling Aphex Twin important now is some journalist that tries to lure people into his article. I'm not missing your point. But saying 'he has been described as' is a cop-out and poor for the important first paragraph. Btw the whole article is poor. Someone should read some books on this and use that information. Drunken: I read that too. It's about this wiki critic guy. He says the expert's status should be restored again. He could be right, but maybe that just has to be done somewhere else, it's not what wiki is about. I understand your frustration about wiki though. I think one should be unhumanly patient to be a wiki editor. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Really, if you're doing a scientific paper, you can't get away with this, you'd seek a better source for calling him influential. Maybe there is a better source in this wiki article, I haven't made myself familair yet with the whole thing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There was that need because I thought the sentence was shit. Just saying so on the talk page sure leads to nowhere. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's more pseudo-factual in that it's basically the same as saying "corpuscles have been said to be what makes up our basic sense perceptions." Your point comes across, by the way, but it just isn't a good point that saying about a statement that it has been said makes it fit for an article in an encyclopaedia. Like big says, it's more of a "commercial" thing, just like how the Laphroaig article used to have the commercial text from the little pamphlet that comes with each bottle as a source of factual information, leading them to include the subjective statement about Laphroaig's taste that it is "an acquired taste." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, it's territorial. People apparently spend time watching articles they've edited, guarding the part they edited. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you can 'watch' articles once your signed up it is not just territorial, it's thinking you yourself know best.. through this whole thread i'm now almost fine with the sentence, but i want a similar one from an authoritative source. I'm fine with it because absolute knowledge doesn't exist and Aphex Twin is most probably important. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"and Aphex Twin is most probably important." needs to come from a right source though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well I'm sorry to hear that you've had edits reversed - I don't think I've ever had an edit reversed that I'm aware of. Also, I've created a couple of articles and people have edited them and I haven't jumped in and reverted back to my precious copy. Probably we don't read and edit the same articles1 1Quoted in The Guardian March 18th 1943. Retrieved May 13th 2008. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
christ, who gives a fuck? this is why aphex rarely plays live anymore, you people terrify him. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You'll notice the main difference between those three examples and the one which BIG objects to is the source is actually listed in the paragraph. "He has been described as" is vague, even if at the bottom there is a source.. a headline from The Guardian. "According to Rolling Stone Magazine..." looks more professional and is better constructed imo. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm happy to see there's fellow wikipedians out here! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
stupid fanboi crap is what i'm battling here, for the sake of wiki and aphex though i now understand it's more a general discussion |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just fried an egg that looks exactly like the continent of Africa. "Eggs have been known to look like the continent of Africa." It doesn't really help if it's some kind of expert who said it: It's not a sentence fit for an encyclopaedic article. Not because it's untrue or because it isn't factual (in a sense of the word) but because it is irrelevant trivia or hearsay. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But it's not irrelevant and when an expert says it's more than hearsay. The influence of an artist is something you want to know about and to an extent a judgement about it can be made. I guess you'd have to look into arthistory epistomology, though maybe you already have? On the other hand: maybe influence is something you want to keep outside an encyclopedia, because it's POV |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I prefer my encyclopaedias to be as factual as possible.. I consider the sentence you wish to erase as being entirely fatuous. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i feel a straw poll coming on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Straw_polls |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The point is that for an expert of any kind to be able to assert as an expert (and not as a private person) that Aphex Twin has been influential, he would have to have something that would show this with certainty, say a list of artists who have explicitly mentioned Aphex Twin as an influence. If such a list existed, the best way to say what is supposedly said by the sentence at the start of the article would be to merely add the list to the article. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yea, but this is why i'm more fine now with the sentence. It's now almost common sense to me Aphex Twin has been influential. About the list of people saying he has been an influence: An expert could say: look at these digital effects this Britney Spears song, Aphex Twin has paved the way for these. An expert is better qualified in establishing influence than an artist who has no overview. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh dear!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Experts can say many things. A historian of music who believes that history evolves in some sort of Hegelian way may say that all artists that have existed are predecessors of and influences to current artists, and that all current artists will be influences to all future artists. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's more pseudo-factual in that it's basically the same as saying "corpuscles have been said to be what makes up our basic sense perceptions." Not true - what you've quoted there is something that can be proven scientifically true or false. Whether or not aphex is the most influential and innovative electronica artist can never be proven. Therefore it's not "pseudo-factual" to say that he's been described as such, it's one journalist's opinion, and there's nothing wrong with quoting it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I agree with you, I wouldn't have objected if he'd added that kind of information, instead of removing the sentence entirely and proposing a far worse one. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's you problem? I did what I thought was right. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
