Posted on 12/09/2014 7:21:54 PM PST by SamAdams76
Wikipedia is much maligned as a serious reference source. However, with regard to trivial subjects, Wikipedia can be a rich source of obscure and oddball facts about subjects that most people don't care about.
For example, no respectable encyclopedia would have an article about snipe hunting but Wikipedia fails to disappoint in that regard. Or how about A Flock of Seagulls?
If you played in a garage rock band that sold 47 copies of an album (and mostly to friends), you can get an entry for that band (so long as somebody outside the band writes it). Or what about a rebellion against powerful eunuchs in second century China? Or exploding whales.
Sometimes I like to sit at the Wikipedia site and use the "random article" feature to see what kind of weird stuff I can dredge up. (Free Republic should really put that feature in so we can pull up threads from the past at random and respond to them).
However, I've noticed that many of these articles are starting to get sloppy. For instance, this article on Ska Pop. Or this one on Humphrey, 2nd Earl of Buckingham. Or Ignacio Goldstein, the famous fencer from Chile. Weak stuff.
They don’t seem at all sloppy to me. Sloppy to me would mean poorly researched assertions leading to the likelihood of incorrect data. This just seems like a minimal job, not a sloppy one. But I would note that they used to mark such short entries as stubs.
I did find it interesting to learn that “sniper” comes from a “snipe hunt.”
Wikipedia is generally good for me, because being a lifelong obsessive reader, I know much more than my only average memory can hold, so wiki is usually good for reminding me of the precise name and dates and such.......as long as I already know the subject.
They aren’t always dependable though and sometimes are greatly flawed, and I don’t trust them for things that I am looking up cold.
It can put me back into a time or a subject, and serves as a quick memory refresher, and it usually gives a quick outline of the topic. It has it’s uses.
Then I didn't.
Flock of Seagulls; used to be a singing group I think. Easy listening. Around ten years after another group existed called “Beautiful Day, their major cult hit was “White Bird”.
“Oh, I’m sorry, did I break your concentration?”
You can always get a haircut once you grow up!
it was kind of a nice tune but became a stereotype for the windham hill genre that came later.
Love that song. The guy's voice really dominates over the gal's voice, which doesn't happen too often.
Like the name of the band too. Back when hippies were more naive idealists than intolerant statists.
For one day.
Wikipedia seems pretty good on facts until the subject involves any type of belief or ideology.
White Bird is a great song to be performed live with a good band, because of all the opportunities to improvise and embellish. The song mixes samba, classical guitar, and a very lengthy fade out or coda, leaving room for a good drummer to make his mark.
Like we really need more random crap??
Actually the exploding whale stories are culturally important. Our cultural identity includes exploding whales — it’s part of who we are as a society, just as we have NASCAR and Elvis and Pet Rocks and Slurpies. Only considerably smellier.
Wikipedia is sloppy because there are persons who battle to deliberately introduce false/disproven information into articles even about entertainment history.
I’m even aware of persons who’ve had articles written about them going through hassles to get false stories/details removed (things may be taken out only to be re-inserted days/weeks later).
Some of the authors have NO interest in truth or accuracy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.