| ||
| ||
|
I try very hard to have complete accuracy in my edits. Any mistake I make is potentially amplified by many thousands of readers getting the wrong information. I strive for accuracy.
Before submitting, I will always preview my changes, no matter how small, and check every link I added or changed.
(But I'm sure I mess up sometimes. Sorry for when I do.)
[I can't believe I made a "My Editing Philosophy" section on my user page without a subsection for music - and I kept it that way for years...]
I actually do have interests, and even strengths, outside of music and actually exercise them on Wikipedia sometimes. But my biggest strength, and the place where I have the most to contribute, is music.
I will almost never edit album or track details, e.g., album or track name or composer or producer credits, etc., unless I have visual confirmation of an error or missing details.
I munge all this up and, if I believe I have sufficient details from this information, I will update the article. I will add citations where reliable. Knowing they may disappear at the blink of an eye, such as for eBay listings, I try to, and hope I have, include links to the visual sources and include catalog numbers and the exact text I am using for whatever I'm editing (e.g., track title, album title, ...) where relevant and possible, so that I, or future Wikipedians, have some hope of finding alternate sources if necessary.
The more ephemeral the source, e.g. eBay, the more I try to leave breadcrumbs for future use.
As so tempting as it can be when visual sources can't be found, I do not use text-only sources such as allmusic.com (a very frequent source for Wikipedia as well as a frequent source of errors on Wikipedia (sorry allmusic, that's just the way it is)), last.fm, or freedb.org. Similarly, I rarely accept Wikipedia itself as a source unless the sourcing is sufficient.
I don't want to besmirch the hard-working Wikipedians that kick butt to the smallest detail, and there are many like that. But, again, I don't want to update Wikipedia unless I'm sure of my change. So, " It's not you, it's me" :).
That said, I do sometimes make updates based on text-only details but if and only if they are significantly more authoritative than what is currently on the site. An example can be seen in the Correct Composer Credits section of the The Spencer Davis Group Gimme Some Lovin' talk page (for which I actually didn't update the main article other than a citation request).
Again, allmusic.com, a very common citation on Wikipedia, simply can't be considered a reliable source across the board, in my opinion, "just cuz", which is unfortunately frequent, noting that allmusic does not appear in Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites at this time. While there are surely allmusic pages that are bang-on accurate in every way imaginable, there is no justification for this to be assumed in general. However, allmusic has been used to show that my visual resources might be wrong simply because allmusic has differing, unreferenced, text-only, data.
IMO, it's time to treat allmusic like IMDb, an unreliable source in general as opposed to "assumed accurate until proven otherwise", a position which it appears to hold at this time.
Not necessarily.
Sometimes the initial releases have simple typos or technical errors (typically typos in track titles or composer or producer errors) or credits are amended after initial release due to legal action. I check the details on the initial CD release from the appropriate countries as well as any significant later releases such as deluxe editions, etc.
Tough question. And there's not a single, simple answer. First, I try to have the "optimal" source for information. This usually means:
Trying to maximize the above conditions, I absolutely need visual confirmation of the music details in all but the rarest of circumstances.
In the early 78 days, it was fairly common for an artist to have a track released on multiple labels, and possibly with different artist names. An example is the song "Ory's Creole Trombone" which was released in August 1922 on "Nordskog 3009" with the artist as "Spikes Seven Pods of Pepper Orchestra". It was also released the same month on "Sunshine 3003" by the artist "Ory's Sunshine Orchestra", which I believe is the same artist.
Often, there is an original release followed by copies of that release made on dime store labels. An example of this is Robert Johnson who released 78s on the Vocalion label which were then copied and released on dime store labels such as Conqueror, Oriole, Perfect, and Romeo.
Another tough question. Getting it right is "still tricky".
This is getting pretty deep.
These are tough questions (à la In Good Company, where Dan Foreman, played here by User:Wantnot, destroys his/her credibility and career in front of the whole company):
"Teddy K. (CEO)> Dan Foreman. Sports America. You ask some excellent questions. Excellent, excellent questions. I'm glad you asked them."
So, you've got artwork with the desired media type (LP/CD/45/78/...) from the most appropriate release country and year, etc. We're good to go, right?
Of course not.
The funny thing with finding what should be the most authoritative release is that, sometimes, due to the release being so new (typically), there can sometimes be labeling mistakes that no one noticed until after release or even years later when reissued on CD.
Sometimes the <not main release> from the <not appropriate release country> has more accurate details (or more commonly, a later release from the appropriate release country).
Sigh...
All that said, many of my music edits don't come from album artwork. There are many cases where this could happen but the most common is release year, though the following comments apply to other details.
In my opinion, the release year is by far the most important detail for any release (LP, single, ...). Other than serious album or track detail errors, few errors are more important than release year errors.
Unfortunately, such details can't be confirmed with album artwork. Yes, (C) and/or (P) on the artwork can be used as a basis but is not authoritative. It's not uncommon that an album/single/... is (C) and/or (P) in some year but not actually released until the following year, or even several years later, for whatever reason.
Since visual details aren't relevant for such details, I have to use other sources. This significantly limits my sources, as it should. For North American releases, I often use the Billboard release charts for this. See the 'Release Year for "Rock and Roll Music" LP' section of the The Frost talk page for an example of how I deal with this. I can't think of cases where I accepted anything other than Billboard as a source. If I did, it must have been a great resource. A possible example might be Anthony Phillips' awesome website, though I doubt I solely relied on even such an amazing site for anything other than confirming details before publishing to Wikipedia.
I treat other such edits, i.e., not just the release year, just as seriously. As always, if I'm not completely sure of an edit, I won't make that edit.
I try pretty darn hard to be as accurate as I can possibly be for any edit I make (music or otherwise). It's, uhm, tricky. (I might have said that a few times already.)
But, when I mess up, which I surely have done, please know that it was not due to a lack of effort or sincere desire to improve the accuracy on Wikipedia.
Please, let me know my of any errors I have made, and/or please fix them as necessary.
But, despite whatever errors I may make, please don't just change things because your CD artwork differs in some way from what is here. Please ensure that the differences you see are generally applicable. "My CD is different" may not be enough to warrant discarding or reverting a previous edit (made by me or anyone else), and in my experience, is sometimes simply incorrect.
Together, we can make Wikipedia a better place. :)
| ||
| ||
|
I try very hard to have complete accuracy in my edits. Any mistake I make is potentially amplified by many thousands of readers getting the wrong information. I strive for accuracy.
Before submitting, I will always preview my changes, no matter how small, and check every link I added or changed.
(But I'm sure I mess up sometimes. Sorry for when I do.)
[I can't believe I made a "My Editing Philosophy" section on my user page without a subsection for music - and I kept it that way for years...]
I actually do have interests, and even strengths, outside of music and actually exercise them on Wikipedia sometimes. But my biggest strength, and the place where I have the most to contribute, is music.
I will almost never edit album or track details, e.g., album or track name or composer or producer credits, etc., unless I have visual confirmation of an error or missing details.
I munge all this up and, if I believe I have sufficient details from this information, I will update the article. I will add citations where reliable. Knowing they may disappear at the blink of an eye, such as for eBay listings, I try to, and hope I have, include links to the visual sources and include catalog numbers and the exact text I am using for whatever I'm editing (e.g., track title, album title, ...) where relevant and possible, so that I, or future Wikipedians, have some hope of finding alternate sources if necessary.
The more ephemeral the source, e.g. eBay, the more I try to leave breadcrumbs for future use.
As so tempting as it can be when visual sources can't be found, I do not use text-only sources such as allmusic.com (a very frequent source for Wikipedia as well as a frequent source of errors on Wikipedia (sorry allmusic, that's just the way it is)), last.fm, or freedb.org. Similarly, I rarely accept Wikipedia itself as a source unless the sourcing is sufficient.
I don't want to besmirch the hard-working Wikipedians that kick butt to the smallest detail, and there are many like that. But, again, I don't want to update Wikipedia unless I'm sure of my change. So, " It's not you, it's me" :).
That said, I do sometimes make updates based on text-only details but if and only if they are significantly more authoritative than what is currently on the site. An example can be seen in the Correct Composer Credits section of the The Spencer Davis Group Gimme Some Lovin' talk page (for which I actually didn't update the main article other than a citation request).
Again, allmusic.com, a very common citation on Wikipedia, simply can't be considered a reliable source across the board, in my opinion, "just cuz", which is unfortunately frequent, noting that allmusic does not appear in Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites at this time. While there are surely allmusic pages that are bang-on accurate in every way imaginable, there is no justification for this to be assumed in general. However, allmusic has been used to show that my visual resources might be wrong simply because allmusic has differing, unreferenced, text-only, data.
IMO, it's time to treat allmusic like IMDb, an unreliable source in general as opposed to "assumed accurate until proven otherwise", a position which it appears to hold at this time.
Not necessarily.
Sometimes the initial releases have simple typos or technical errors (typically typos in track titles or composer or producer errors) or credits are amended after initial release due to legal action. I check the details on the initial CD release from the appropriate countries as well as any significant later releases such as deluxe editions, etc.
Tough question. And there's not a single, simple answer. First, I try to have the "optimal" source for information. This usually means:
Trying to maximize the above conditions, I absolutely need visual confirmation of the music details in all but the rarest of circumstances.
In the early 78 days, it was fairly common for an artist to have a track released on multiple labels, and possibly with different artist names. An example is the song "Ory's Creole Trombone" which was released in August 1922 on "Nordskog 3009" with the artist as "Spikes Seven Pods of Pepper Orchestra". It was also released the same month on "Sunshine 3003" by the artist "Ory's Sunshine Orchestra", which I believe is the same artist.
Often, there is an original release followed by copies of that release made on dime store labels. An example of this is Robert Johnson who released 78s on the Vocalion label which were then copied and released on dime store labels such as Conqueror, Oriole, Perfect, and Romeo.
Another tough question. Getting it right is "still tricky".
This is getting pretty deep.
These are tough questions (à la In Good Company, where Dan Foreman, played here by User:Wantnot, destroys his/her credibility and career in front of the whole company):
"Teddy K. (CEO)> Dan Foreman. Sports America. You ask some excellent questions. Excellent, excellent questions. I'm glad you asked them."
So, you've got artwork with the desired media type (LP/CD/45/78/...) from the most appropriate release country and year, etc. We're good to go, right?
Of course not.
The funny thing with finding what should be the most authoritative release is that, sometimes, due to the release being so new (typically), there can sometimes be labeling mistakes that no one noticed until after release or even years later when reissued on CD.
Sometimes the <not main release> from the <not appropriate release country> has more accurate details (or more commonly, a later release from the appropriate release country).
Sigh...
All that said, many of my music edits don't come from album artwork. There are many cases where this could happen but the most common is release year, though the following comments apply to other details.
In my opinion, the release year is by far the most important detail for any release (LP, single, ...). Other than serious album or track detail errors, few errors are more important than release year errors.
Unfortunately, such details can't be confirmed with album artwork. Yes, (C) and/or (P) on the artwork can be used as a basis but is not authoritative. It's not uncommon that an album/single/... is (C) and/or (P) in some year but not actually released until the following year, or even several years later, for whatever reason.
Since visual details aren't relevant for such details, I have to use other sources. This significantly limits my sources, as it should. For North American releases, I often use the Billboard release charts for this. See the 'Release Year for "Rock and Roll Music" LP' section of the The Frost talk page for an example of how I deal with this. I can't think of cases where I accepted anything other than Billboard as a source. If I did, it must have been a great resource. A possible example might be Anthony Phillips' awesome website, though I doubt I solely relied on even such an amazing site for anything other than confirming details before publishing to Wikipedia.
I treat other such edits, i.e., not just the release year, just as seriously. As always, if I'm not completely sure of an edit, I won't make that edit.
I try pretty darn hard to be as accurate as I can possibly be for any edit I make (music or otherwise). It's, uhm, tricky. (I might have said that a few times already.)
But, when I mess up, which I surely have done, please know that it was not due to a lack of effort or sincere desire to improve the accuracy on Wikipedia.
Please, let me know my of any errors I have made, and/or please fix them as necessary.
But, despite whatever errors I may make, please don't just change things because your CD artwork differs in some way from what is here. Please ensure that the differences you see are generally applicable. "My CD is different" may not be enough to warrant discarding or reverting a previous edit (made by me or anyone else), and in my experience, is sometimes simply incorrect.
Together, we can make Wikipedia a better place. :)