Wikipedia

[Tompicks]

I was browsing the internet today and looked up Jerry Reed's listing on Wikipedia. Although it has lots of information, I was taken aback by the comments at the top that said the article was compromised by "weasel" words, which are supposedly unsupported claims. Not sure which parts of the article are in question, but whatever. On a good note there is also a Buster B. Jones listing that someone put up, although very basic and contains no photo.

[Tony Enamel]

On a good note there is also a Buster B. Jones listing that someone put up, although very basic and contains no photo.

Just solved the photo problem at least.

[Tompicks]

Thanks Tony. I corrected a few dates of CD releases. I am not a big fan of Wikipedia in general just because there is lots of opinion and extraneous stuff in alot of the articles but I do want to see our fingerstyle heros recognized and available for the world to see.

[Tony Enamel]

Tom,

I don't think it's useful to split the discography between solo and duet albums, because there's only one duo record with Bresh which would just as well fit into the regular list of records.

It would make more sense to add a chronological list of his (instructional and concert) videos in that section (2.1 albums; 2.2 videos) with reference to the Melbay and Homespun Tapes websites.

Perhaps anybody feels like doing that.

Cheers,

Ingo

[thenorm]

Wikipedia is to be taken with a pound of salt...

Over on gretschpages Deed Eddy (Duane Eddy's wife) posts there often and she told about constantly going in and editing Duane's Wiki page but for whatever reason they've blocked her from editing it anymore.

She's a very intelligent woman and, being Duane's wife, who better should do the editing?

[Tony Enamel]

Wikipedia is to be taken with a pound of salt...

Over on gretschpages Deed Eddy (Duane Eddy's wife) posts there often and she told about constantly going in and editing Duane's Wiki page but for whatever reason they've blocked her from editing it anymore.

She's a very intelligent woman and, being Duane's wife, who better should do the editing?

Norm,

while you're right that not everything on Wikipedia can be taken for granted, I'd say that the fact that Deed is Duane's wife shows that she doesn't necessarily have the "neutral point of view" Wikipedia is asking for. Of course, she could add information, but would have to cite written sources like books, articles and trustful sources. Again articles can be publicity influenced, therefore it is sometimes doubtful whether an article is a reliable source, but that's a different discussion ... You can't write as some kind of natural authority, but always have to give some kind of proof for what you're doing.

Regards,

Ingo

[Tompicks]

Tom,

I don't think it's useful to split the discography between solo and duet albums, because there's only one duo record with Bresh which would just as well fit into the regular list of records.

It would make more sense to add a chronological list of his (instructional and concert) videos in that section (2.1 albums; 2.2 videos) with reference to the Melbay and Homespun Tapes websites.

Perhaps anybody feels like doing that.

Cheers,

Ingo

Not sure who did the discography, I just revised the dates shown on "Fingers in Flight" and "Just Us", and added the sentence aboiut mentoring young players. Agree with you about the videos, maybe somene can do that.

[thenorm]

Ingo..

I once tried a cleanup of Chet's Wikipedia some years ago and they asked for no particular certification. I think Deed chose not to identify herself but the fact remains that anyone can edit wikipedia stuff (or used to be able to). I think she ran afoul of some know-it-all who disputed whatever it was she put in. I've read the woman's posts for years and she is no airheaded blonde-type but a very savvy, intelligent and articulate woman.

It doesn't matter. Bottom line, it's OK to cite Wikipedia as long as you're aware that the information may be off...

[Mike Detlefsen]

Ingo..
Bottom line, it's OK to cite Wikipedia as long as you're aware that the information may be off...

Same for the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Still, many critics have tried to downplay its (Wikipedia) role as a source of valid information and have often pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica as an example of an accurate reference.

For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia. "

Full article at: http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as ... 97332.html

Mike