I, too, like Courtney had some initial skepticism about editing Wikipedia. I stuck to an uber-basic edit to Michael Mann's page in regards to Christian Bale's character in this past summer's Public Enemies. Although my edit was so minor that it's addition could be easily counted by characters, I felt a nervous tinge as I was pressing the submit button.
I recognize the issues with Wikipedia in regards to it's accuracy and truthfulness. Yet, I still rely on it almost daily as a base source of information and more often than not, the site does not lead me wrong. As Colin mentioned in class, I wouldn't use the information on Wikipedia as any sort of medical reference but for the topics I'm interested in (Film, Music), Wikipedia has been overwhelmingly helpful in broadening my horizons and tastes, in rather accurate fashion. I understand Colin's point about how the genius function of iTunes might actually be restricting tastes versus broadening them but I'm not sure I agree with them since to a certain extent, a browse through a musical genre's page on Wikipedia isn't all that much different. Even just in the most briefest of manners, a mention of another band introduces the listener to that band's existence, the same purpose that Genius does. Genius does not necessarily cull only singles or mainstream tracks for the process, but looks at deeper album cuts as a possible source as well.
How does this tie back into Wikipedia? Let me explain through example.
Let's assume that I am someone with blossoming musical tastes, a wandering ear eager to escape from the confines of Clear Channel's radio monopoly. I love the band Coldplay because of their epic sounding stadium rock/pop. I decide to hit their Wikipedia page to see what's up. A quick browse through the introductory paragraphs points me to the following bands:
Radiohead- Argubly the most cutting edge, business altering band currently releasing music that a large number of people will hear. Alt./Indie Rock. Also British.
Jeff Buckley- Mid 90's Alt. Singer/Songwriter/Male Diva who enjoys a large cult following. Achieved some mainstream success with his rendition of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". Son of Tim Buckley, influential singer/songwriter in 1960's. American.
Kate Bush- Influential and respected female singer/songwriter. Considered by many as the best female singer/songwriter of the last 30 years. Known for her ethereal, arty songs. Brit.
Kraftwerk- Ultra-influential German electronic group. Sampled by Coldplay for their song "Talk". Genres such as Techno, Industrial, Synth Pop and Electro all stem from Kraftwerk. Argubly the most important German musical export of the 20th century.
My Bloody Valentine- Shoegaze band led by Kevin Shields from late 80's, early 90's known for their densely layered studio albums and deafening live shows. Bankrupted label making "Loveless" considered by some as the greatest album of the 1990's. Recently reunited. British.
So, in the first 3 paragraphs, the reader has been introduced to 5 highly important bands, ranging in popularity, but nearly unequaled in importance and influence. The reader from those bands webpages will find The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr., R.E.M., Miles Davis, Zeppelin, The Who, Neu!, Can, Joy Division, New Order, U2 and Afrika Bambaataa, not to mention the suggestions of genre: Shoegaze, Noise Pop, Dream Pop, Punk, Post-Punk, Jazz, Fusion, Jangle Pop, Space Rock, American Underground, Hardcore, Krautrock and Electro, from all of which most of modern music stems.
Once again, my point may be lost. As an introduction to things, Wikipedia is invaluable. As a detailed source of flawless information, perhaps not so much. Still, I worried that I would somehow mess this up. Why? Because, despite my academic learnings otherwise, I more or less trust Wikipedia in all its social goodness. I wouldn't want to destroy that for someone else, so even the smallest addition, despite it's flawless accuracy, is stressful. My worry now becomes that other people take it as seriously as I do. My real worry is that I know they don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree almost completely. No, wikipedia certainly cannot be trusted for facts and I wouldn't even go there for anything beyond a quick explanation of something. But for that purpose, it is excellent. It puts at the touch of a button a baseline understanding of some biographical, geographical, historic, or other such item. I was concerned for the same reason about posting information from a place of relative lack of expertise. Though everyone is supposed to be aware of Wikipedia's limitations, they often don't heed these warnings and take everything up there as fact. Is it just their bad or should content be policed more than it is?
ReplyDelete