Home› The Porch

stop screwing with the wikipedia page

turned2blackturned2black Posts: 15
edited September 2009 in The Porch
Wikipedia is important and has worked hard on increasing its accuracy and quality over the past few years. Just because you don't like the review, doesn't mean you have the right to take it off Backspacer's wikipedia page. Pitchfork's reviews are often included in the review section on wikipedia.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,319
    ditto
  • DeLukinDeLukin Posts: 2,757
    So having an obviously biased review helps Wikipedia increase accuracy??? Sorry, the social web has spoken and deemed the review shite. Move on.
    I smile, but who am I kidding...
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    Yeah that review blew chunks..what a moron
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • turned2blackturned2black Posts: 15
    Stop being a baby. Respect other people's work. Contributors have done a nice job crafting the Backspacer wiki page. Leave it to them to decide. Stop trying to inject your bias into something that has essentially become a free reference for the entire world.
  • tcaporaletcaporale Posts: 1,577
    I agree that it's wrong to take the review down.
  • chromiamchromiam Posts: 4,114
    damn people bitch and cry about censorship on the board all the time, but when the shoe is on the other foot.......
    This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.

    Admin

    Social awareness does not equal political activism!

    5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
  • 12345AGNST112345AGNST1 Posts: 4,906
    People are seriously removing negative articles from wikipedia?

    Wow.... That's really pathetic.
    5/28/06, 6/27/08, 10/28/09, 5/18/10, 5/21/10
    8/7/08, 6/9/09
  • CitizenRickCitizenRick Posts: 1,079
    Leave the review. It just makes him look like a Jackass because all the other reviews are very good.
    "Had my eyes peeled both wide open, and I got a glimpse...of my innocense, got back my inner sence, baby got it...still got it"
  • DeLukinDeLukin Posts: 2,757
    To me, the issue isn't about posting bad reviews - it's about posting BIASED bad reviews. There are several other major media bad reviews of Backspacer that don't come off as a personal attack on the band from a jaded ex-fan. Why don't the Wikipediafiles get one (or several) of those for context? I think it's wrong to give that guy at Pitchfork any more publicity than he already has. It's obviously a smear job because PJ isn't "indie" enough for him and it has no place in a paragraph highlighting "...universal acclaim from music critics" IMO.
    I smile, but who am I kidding...
  • turned2blackturned2black Posts: 15
    I agree that the PF review is poorly written, but a lot of reviews are. All Music Guide's review doesn't mention a song and is written by a known 10C member. Fair is fair. And Pitchfork, good or bad, is fairly influential and is included in a lot of wiki entries. Again, people are crafting these pages for FREE and take pride in wikipedia and the pages the help to maintain. Respect their work.
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    free speech should not be censored, disagree with the sentiment or not. end of story.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • tcaporaletcaporale Posts: 1,577
    turned2black wrote:
    All Music Guide's review doesn't mention a song and is written by a known 10C member.
    Stephen Thomas Erlewine posts here?
  • rebornFixerrebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    That review WAS absolutely terrible, but I agree with those who wish to leave it up. People who know the band and who possess one modicum of critical thought can see that review for what it is.
  • petrocspetrocs Posts: 4,342
    we're really agruing about a wiki page? is that what this board has come to?
    Shows:
    9/24/96 MD. 9/28/96 Randalls. 8/28-29/98 Camden. 9/8/98 NJ. 9/18/98 MD. 9/1-2/00 Camden. 9/4/00 MD. 4/28/03 Philly. 7/5-6/03 Camden. 9/30/05 AC.
    10/3/05 Philly. 5/27-28/06 Camden. 6/23/06 Pitt. 6/19-20/08 Camden. 6/24/08 MSG. 8/7/08 EV Newark, NJ. 6/11-12/09 EV Philly, PA. 10/27-28-30-31/09 Philly, PA., 5/15/10 Hartford,5/17/10 Boston, 5/18/10 Newark, 5/20-21/10 MSG
  • aNiMaLaNiMaL Posts: 7,117
    What the hell are you guys talking about? I am looking at the Backspacer wiki page and do not see the glaring bad review.
  • DeLukinDeLukin Posts: 2,757
    It's a WIKI page. By definition, it's SUPPOSED to be changed for the better to make it more accurate. Anyone complaining about free speech being violated needs to get a clue. If you honestly want to write something and you don't want it to be edited by anyone then you should NOT be posting it on wikipedia. That review was 1) a biased review and 2) didn't belong in a paragraph hailing critical acceptance of the album. Regardless of Pitchfork's reputation OR the amount of work someone put into posting it. It's a WIKI. It's dynamic and communal. That's the point. Sheesh.
    I smile, but who am I kidding...
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    DeLukin wrote:
    It's a WIKI page. By definition, it's SUPPOSED to be changed for the better to make it more accurate. Anyone complaining about free speech being violated needs to get a clue. If you honestly want to write something and you don't want it to be edited by anyone then you should NOT be posting it on wikipedia. That review was 1) a biased review and 2) didn't belong in a paragraph hailing critical acceptance of the album. Regardless of Pitchfork's reputation OR the amount of work someone put into posting it. It's a WIKI. It's dynamic and communal. That's the point. Sheesh.

    I personally don't think I need to get a clue. I personally don't think anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else which reviews should be viewable and which should not.

    It is a free speech issue, whether you want to believe that or not.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • jwillmojwillmo Posts: 471
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    DeLukin wrote:
    It's a WIKI page. By definition, it's SUPPOSED to be changed for the better to make it more accurate. Anyone complaining about free speech being violated needs to get a clue. If you honestly want to write something and you don't want it to be edited by anyone then you should NOT be posting it on wikipedia. That review was 1) a biased review and 2) didn't belong in a paragraph hailing critical acceptance of the album. Regardless of Pitchfork's reputation OR the amount of work someone put into posting it. It's a WIKI. It's dynamic and communal. That's the point. Sheesh.

    I personally don't think I need to get a clue. I personally don't think anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else which reviews should be viewable and which should not.

    It is a free speech issue, whether you want to believe that or not.
    I personally agree that it's pretty stupid to take off a review because it's "biased" (is anyone actually basing this ridiculous accusation on any actual facts about the writer?) but it most certainly not a "free speech" issue. I have a real pet peeve with people throwing that around. Unless the federal gov't is the one taking pitchfork's review off the PJ wiki page, it has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with "free speech." It is definitely censorship, if that's what you were trying to say, but the first ammendment has shit to do with it.
  • SVRDhand13SVRDhand13 Posts: 26,583
    Looking at the scores from all the other reviews just goes to show that Pitchfork sucks. They are easily the most biased highly read music website out there. It seems like they have a range of possible scores to give for every band before they actually hear the album. Not related to the Backspacer review but they also lower scores once a band they like becomes "mainstream".
    severed hand thirteen
    2006: Gorge 7/23 2008: Hartford 6/27 Beacon 7/1 2009: Spectrum 10/30-31
    2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
    2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
    2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
    2017: RRHoF 4/7   2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4   2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18 
    2022: MSG 9/11  2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
    2025: Pittsburgh 5/16+5/18
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    jwillmo wrote:
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    DeLukin wrote:
    It's a WIKI page. By definition, it's SUPPOSED to be changed for the better to make it more accurate. Anyone complaining about free speech being violated needs to get a clue. If you honestly want to write something and you don't want it to be edited by anyone then you should NOT be posting it on wikipedia. That review was 1) a biased review and 2) didn't belong in a paragraph hailing critical acceptance of the album. Regardless of Pitchfork's reputation OR the amount of work someone put into posting it. It's a WIKI. It's dynamic and communal. That's the point. Sheesh.

    I personally don't think I need to get a clue. I personally don't think anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else which reviews should be viewable and which should not.

    It is a free speech issue, whether you want to believe that or not.
    I personally agree that it's pretty stupid to take off a review because it's "biased" (is anyone actually basing this ridiculous accusation on any actual facts about the writer?) but it most certainly not a "free speech" issue. I have a real pet peeve with people throwing that around. Unless the federal gov't is the one taking pitchfork's review off the PJ wiki page, it has abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with "free speech." It is definitely censorship, if that's what you were trying to say, but the first ammendment has shit to do with it.

    Thanks, but I don't just "throw that around". I also loathe folks that use it for any freakin' argument. But to me it applies in this instance. Censorship and free speech are not mutually exclusive. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • DeLukinDeLukin Posts: 2,757
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    I personally don't think anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else which reviews should be viewable and which should not.
    Actually the person that created the initial wikipedia entry told you what reviews were viewable and which ones weren't, but if you're saying you don't like the fact that someone can change what they wrote then I don't think you understand the concept of a wiki. Wiki's exist to allow the community to decide what is valid information about a topic, so if I want to change information you've entered to make the entry more accurate, it's within my right (and even my responsibility) to do so...
    I smile, but who am I kidding...
  • mookeywrenchmookeywrench Posts: 5,965
    For a group of people that tout how reviews are meaningless to them and that Pitchfork especially is/has been dead to them, you all sure are getting your feathers ruffled on here today.
    350x700px-LL-d2f49cb4_vinyl-needle-scu-e1356666258495.jpeg
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    DeLukin wrote:
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    I personally don't think anyone has the right to tell me or anyone else which reviews should be viewable and which should not.
    Actually the person that created the initial wikipedia entry told you what reviews were viewable and which ones weren't, but if you're saying you don't like the fact that someone can change what they wrote then I don't think you understand the concept of a wiki. Wiki's exist to allow the community to decide what is valid information about a topic, so if I want to change information you've entered to make the entry more accurate, it's within my right (and even my responsibility) to do so...

    absolutely I understand the concept of Wiki. it is so a community can decide what is FACTUAL and what is INACCURATE. His review, while I don't agree with it, is neither, it is a subjective opinion. So it is neither your responsibility NOR your right to take it down. There's a difference between someone editing an entry that says "Eddie Vedder is actually a woman competing as a male athlete" and someone having an opinion on their work.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • NothinManNothinMan Posts: 45
    All reviews are biased. By definition, a review is an opinion piece and is written with a known bias; that of the author's musical tastes. The only way to be impartial when presenting an album review is to present both positive reviews and negative reviews, which is what the wikipedia page attempted to do. By deleting the negative reviews, you actually make the wikipedia article more biased, not less.
  • PillowPantsPillowPants Posts: 4,877
    i love messing with wiki pages

    really
  • DeLukinDeLukin Posts: 2,757
    Johnny Sitar wrote:
    I understand the concept of Wiki. it is so a community can decide what is FACTUAL and what is INACCURATE. His review, while I don't agree with it, is neither, it is a subjective opinion. So it is neither your responsibility NOR your right to take it down. There's a difference between someone editing an entry that says "Eddie Vedder is actually a woman competing as a male athlete" and someone having an opinion on their work.
    I don't want to drag this out, but we're talking about apples and oranges here. It's not just about correcting bad information, it's also about refining and bettering the information that's already there. We could debate about the grey area endlessly but the bottom line is that a wiki entry is not proprietary, and it shouldn't be. The debate is interesting, though, because there IS a lot of grey area to discuss. You make some good points but we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one...
    I smile, but who am I kidding...
Sign In or Register to comment.