Go to the NEW FORUM
Hello, I've been a wikipedian for a while now, and I've noticed that this site is used as a source for several articles. Given the policy about sources on wikipedia, it is not in theory an acceptable source.
I've read in the project's archives that the deletion of any references to acclaimedmusic.net has been discussed twice, but it has not yet been followed by facts.
To be sure to remain on wikipedia, the site has to comply to two conditions:
- being famous enough. As far as I know, it has been quoted in a book called "The Music Internet Untangled: Using Online Services to Expand Your Musical Horizons" and used on the site Popmatters which is discussed in a Wikipedia article, so I guess it's taking the right track.
- quote its own sources. And that's where wikipedian users of AM.net might have trouble finding arguments to back the use of AM as a source, since you barely give any references to the lists used (i.e. ISBNs, ISSNs, authors, etc.)
I'm not going to retackle the issue on wikipedia, cause its not my vision of things and for as its current level of development, a massive deletion may occur much faster, and kill off the site's seemingly developing reputation. But I want to let you know that it may happen one day.
Have you clicked the link 'critic's lists' on the main page?
Yep, only the year is given for the magazines lists. For wikipedia standards, that's sure not enough.
I'm fairly sure the viewership of AM doesn't depend on those few references on wikipedia.
If you click the link it will take you to a site that has the ISBN if it is a book. Online lists also have links directly to the source. It appears that lists from print magazine don't have anything but the year.
Of course not, but it's probably one of the biggest showcase for the site. And the references are not that few. But whatever.
I didn't mean to insinuate the website being referenced doesn't help, I just doubt it would singlehandedly "kill off the site's seemingly developing reputation".
That said, and since I wish this site all the popularity it can get, what exactly do you reckon we need to add to the magazine references? I'm sure Henrik has the list stored in a spreadsheet somewhere (like everything ) and given the very active community here it shouldn't be too hard to add a few details to sources.
This does make me curious as to how large a percentage of the visitors arrives here through wikipedia. Henrik?
Hmm. At least ISSN, plus the authors if possible. Extremely heavy work, but it would probably make the website far more credible as a source. And yes, I exxagerated a bit :).
Of course, it would be the very ideal. ;)
Well, I don't know for the ISSNs (I don't know what it is in fact) but for the authors that would be complicated, AM doesn't take single-critic lists.
Most of the lists are made by a whole staff, I doubt there would be any interest for instance to list all the writers who contributed in each Pitchfork list.
Maybe, but that's the way it's supposed to be on wikipedia. But wikipedia doesn't publish lists, so the instance where this model is used concern articles realized by one or two people of course.
The lists' case is different. It's for you to see.