Wikipedia

[heikki]

Hi!

There's a lot of valuable information on Wikipedia on artists, but also a lot of incorerect info. When I see something that I know is not correct, I usually add my article on that artist either in References or External links.
Lately, however, I've noticed that they are deleted. Is this because the original writer wants to keep that text intact or why?
My recent deleted articles - which actually are authorised - are on Wee Willie Walker and Wendy Moten.
What kind of experiences do you have on Wikipedia?

Best regards
Heikki

[edafan]

I agree with you.

edafan

[carlo]

Wikipedia is community managed. Anyone can add or edit content, but the content that you add is reviewed and voted upon by numerous experts on the subject matter. Any content you add also needs to be properly referenced/cited with sources, like news articles, journals, etc. They do this to maintain integrity of information. I'm sure if you Googled this topic, you'd find some helpful articles on how to successfully add content and what criteria you need to fulfill to ensure it remains permanent. I agree though, not all of the info on Wikipedia is correct.

[heikki]

Hi Carlo!

Thank you for your good answer.
What bothers me most is the fact that all my previous articles have been approved, but now two new and profound ones with interviews have not been accepted, and I haven't got any explanation for it. I asked about this in their "Talk" mode, but perhaps that is not the right channel. There was a short notice that the article doesn't fit any template, but what does that actually mean?

Best regards
Heikki

[heikki]

Hi Carlo!

Thank you for your good answer.
What bothers me most is the fact that all my previous articles have been approved, but now two new and profound ones with interviews have not been accepted, and I haven't got any explanation for it. I asked about this in their "Talk" mode, but perhaps that is not the right channel. There was a short notice that the article doesn't fit any template, but what does that actually mean?

Best regards
Heikki

[carlo]

My pleasure, Heikki. Have you seen this article? It sounds like it may be tougher for Wikipedia to accept interviews, since sometimes they are more subjective/opinion based and therefore automatically assumed to be a secondary source of information instead of a primary source.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Interviews

[heikki]

Thank you, Carlo.
That was an interesting article. Even if the interviewee is the artist himself and in his answers he corrects some of the information that was printed on his Wikipedia page, that could still be considered a secondary source :-).
I guess I have to live with that, although I don't see any reason why they couldn't accept that interview as an external source.

Once more, thank you!

Best regards
Heikki

[detmotownguy]

Hi!

There's a lot of valuable information on Wikipedia on artists, but also a lot of incorerect info. When I see something that I know is not correct, I usually add my article on that artist either in References or External links.
Lately, however, I've noticed that they are deleted. Is this because the original writer wants to keep that text intact or why?
My recent deleted articles - which actually are authorised - are on Wee Willie Walker and Wendy Moten.
What kind of experiences do you have on Wikipedia?

Best regards
Heikki

Hello:
There is much incorrect info especially on record sales in order to boost the success of the artist or group.

[carlo]

Even if the interviewee is the artist himself and in his answers he corrects some of the information that was printed on his Wikipedia page, that could still be considered a secondary source :-).
I guess I have to live with that, although I don't see any reason why they couldn't accept that interview as an external source.

Once more, thank you!


I agree with you, Heikki. It doesn't make much sense to me either. You're most welcome and stay well!