If any of you have made contributions to Wikipedia, I’m sure you’ve had all kinds of experiences. And I’m sure many of those have been negative ones. I’ve had some too, but for the most part I’ve managed to deal with them.
I find it fun to read Wikipedia, and to throw in tidbits of information that others have missed, particularly on the subject of music. I’m generally good about including citations, but at any rate I avoid posting anything that anyone should have a reason to question. Sometimes something I’ve posted will get removed, but if there’s a good reason for it I’ll accept that.
But some experiences I’ve had recently have taken all of the fun out of it for me. It seems that some Wikipedia pages have self-appointed “guardians” who, with all good intentions, go a little too far in dealing with what they see as “violations.”
The following isn’t a real-life example, but it sums up (without much of any exaggeration) what kinds of things I’ve been running into.
Let’s say the page for NURSERY CRYME gives an explanation for “The Fountain of Salmacis” that’s rather confusing and misleading. Being a stickler for accuracy, I change the entry to point out that the song is about the myth of Hermaphroditus. I include a link to the “Hermaphroditus” page.
Then someone comes along and undoes my change, saying that I need to give a citation for my claim.
ME: Um, why does this need a citation? The song mentions Hermaphroditus by name and recounts the myth in detail.
HIM: It may be obvious to YOU that the song is about Hermaphroditus. But then it’s “obvious” to some people that “In The Air Tonight” is about Phil Collins seeing someone refuse to save a person from drowning, which of course is wrong!
ME: Um… that’s not the same thing at all. “Fountain” is clearly about Hermaphroditus. It’s not like that “In The Air Tonight” legend. It’s more like how, say, “Return to Pooh Corner” by Kenny Loggins is about Winnie-The-Pooh.
HIM: And how do you know that song is actually about Winnie-The-Pooh?? It could be about something else called “Pooh”!
ME: Um…
Here’s another odd thing I’ve run into. On a page about a certain album I added a short paragraph, regarding a CD reissue, that (1) was clearly and objectively observable by any listener; (2) involved things that fans might want to know about; and (3) was not something the artist or label was likely to call attention to.
Well, some guy added the big “This section needs citations or it may be removed!” header to this. I disagreed, so I removed the header. He put it back.
In an attempt to compromise, I replaced my paragraph with a single line that glossed over the details but seemed less likely to be questioned. He said “sorry, that’s not good enough”… and put back my original paragraph, along with the “may be removed!” header.
Finally, I just removed my paragraph altogether. Again, he put the whole thing back, still with the notice that it “may be removed!” OK, whatever.
Maybe these guys are right, and I’m not playing by the Wikipedia rules strictly enough. But it doesn’t feel like they’re right.