Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 20.08.2007 23:12 |
Hi Fans, We have been trying to fix up the Freddie Mercury Wikipedia article so that we can hopefully make it a "Featured Article" or something like that. Here it is: link. Trust me, it is a lot better than many of the articles that have actually been featured on the main page. For instance, there was a featured Gwen Stefani article that acticle that actually had a trivia section stuck in it. Talk about crappy! I guess that her fans are very dedicated. I would greatly appreciate any help here, although I hope that the content will remain relatively constant. Feel free to change the wording or to move sentences around. I think that it is vastly better than it was over a year ago when it was rated as a B article. I would be interested in any new references that you may have as well. I also do not know the authors of references 12, 14, 20 and 30. If anyone knows, that would be great. These came from Melody Maker, People and the NME. |
steven 35638 20.08.2007 23:40 |
With all honesty, that wikipedia article on Freddie Mercury is pathetic. Even the picture of Freddie Mercury at the top of the page is mediocre at best. I'll see what I can do, but unfortunatly I don't have the advantage of having time to spend on such an activity. |
PieterMC 21.08.2007 00:05 |
Seriously... why waste time editing wikipedia? |
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever 21.08.2007 00:52 |
I agree that the image at the top of the article does indeed suck. I believe that the reason behind why it involves the fact that you are not allowed to use copyrighted material. Someone asked why we should care about Wikipedia. The answer is that, if you Goolge the name "Freddie Mercury," the Wikipedia article is the first thing that you get. 10 million people visit it every single day. Talk about influential. |
vinny2256_ 21.08.2007 08:31 |
The photo at the top is very inappropriate and should be replaced with a biographical one such as the one that was there before. The other 'odd' photos of Freddie carrying a friend home drunk as well as him at college are also quite out of place for an article where people will first tend to go to if they want to find out information on Freddie Mercury. EDIT- Sorry, the photo has since been replaced and is a lot better!! |
PieterMC 21.08.2007 08:41 |
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: Someone asked why we should care about Wikipedia. The answer is that, if you Goolge the name "Freddie Mercury," the Wikipedia article is the first thing that you get. 10 million people visit it every single day. Talk about influential.I doubt 10 million look at the Freddie page everyday. Nevermind the fact that anybody can edit the page, so the information is dubious at best. |
steven 35638 21.08.2007 09:39 |
PieterMC wrote:I have to agree with 'Freddie's #1 Fan Forever', but I don't agree with the 10 million people spiel. However, when it's all said and done Wikipedia is probably one of the most influential sources of information on the internet, therefore people might get the wrong idea when they read about certain topics. As fans of Queen we should help maintain an appropriate webpage for him, even if it could be tampered with in the nearby future. I'm doing it for Freddie Mercury's sake.Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: Someone asked why we should care about Wikipedia. The answer is that, if you Goolge the name "Freddie Mercury," the Wikipedia article is the first thing that you get. 10 million people visit it every single day. Talk about influential.I doubt 10 million look at the Freddie page everyday. Nevermind the fact that anybody can edit the page, so the information is dubious at best. |
PieterMC 21.08.2007 09:42 |
<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: However, when it's all said and done Wikipedia is probably one of the most influential sources of information on the internetIt's also probably the most unreliable. |
steven 35638 21.08.2007 09:54 |
PieterMC wrote:I never said it wasn't.<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: However, when it's all said and done Wikipedia is probably one of the most influential sources of information on the internetIt's also probably the most unreliable. |
The Real Wizard 21.08.2007 14:48 |
Why are there two pictures from the mid 60s, but none from 1970-1985 ?? |
Penetration_Guru 21.08.2007 15:16 |
PieterMC wrote: Seriously... why waste time editing wikipedia?" |
Erin 21.08.2007 15:24 |
I edited it. I added a Queen Archives link. |
ok.computer 21.08.2007 15:26 |
PieterMC wrote: Seriously... why waste time editing wikipedia?....because Wiki isn't pathetic on every subject. And frankly, because the internet generation coming behind us is SO incapable of sitting and reading anything other than the latest Harry Potter, that if instant educational gratification is what they want, then the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate. I think they used to call it "public service". |
PieterMC 21.08.2007 15:32 |
ok.computer wrote: the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.That's why there are numerous more accurate fan sites. |
Erin 21.08.2007 15:34 |
PieterMC wrote:Yeah..why waste time making wiki accurate if someone else can just come along and delete your work?ok.computer wrote: the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.That's why there are numerous more accurate fan sites. |
ok.computer 21.08.2007 15:36 |
PieterMC wrote:Your average 12 year old is going to go straight to Wiki. I don't doubt the veracity, or work put into, or accuracy of those fan sites, but Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool.ok.computer wrote: the very least those of us who know better can do, is make sure it is accurate.That's why there are numerous more accurate fan sites. I know that they should be encouraged to at least open the odd book cover, but they aren't. So again, just to reiterate, if this is their first port of call on any number of subjects, it should be as accurate as possible. So I applaud the efforts of those above who are trying to ensure that this very high-profile internet encyclopedia is in some way accurate. |
PieterMC 21.08.2007 15:50 |
ok.computer wrote: Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool.That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. |
ok.computer 21.08.2007 15:54 |
PieterMC wrote:Be appalled. And welcome to the next generation.ok.computer wrote: Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool.That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. |
cakebox. 21.08.2007 15:54 |
PieterMC wrote:Around here it's the first place to go. Look on the average source list of a school project: half of the sources are mostly wikipedia or links from wikipedia.ok.computer wrote: Wiki is being used in the classroom - alas - as a reference or research tool.That is very sad then. It I was a teacher grading a paper and I saw wikipedia listed as a reference I would be appalled. |
Erin 21.08.2007 15:59 |
I've heard recently that a lot of teachers are banning wikipedia as a reference. |
PieterMC 21.08.2007 16:13 |
Considering the stories recently of articles being edited by the CIA, Apple, The Vatican etc, etc. I would find it unlikely that any decent teacher would accept wikipedia as a valid source of information. Also in March 2007 one of the leading wikipedia administrators was exposed as a fraud. --------- "A prominent Wikipedia administrator and Wikia employee has been caught lying to the media and 'other' professors about his academic credentials. Wikipedia's Essjay has been representing himself as 'a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. My Academic Degrees: Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.), Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.), Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.), Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD).' His real identity came to light after Wikia offered him a job: It turns out that he is really 24 years old with no degree living in Louisville, KY. Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, says 'I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it.' How will this affect Wikipedia's already shaky reputation with the academic world?" --------- Also from February 2007: College History Department: Wikipedia Not Acceptable Research Source link |
Erin 21.08.2007 16:38 |
This site is much more accurate that wikipedia. ;-) link |
teleman 21.08.2007 19:06 |
Freddie's #1 Fan Forever wrote: Hi Fans, We have been trying to fix up the Freddie Mercury Wikipedia article so that we can hopefully make it a "Featured Article" or something like that. Here it is: link. Trust me, it is a lot better than many of the articles that have actually been featured on the main page. For instance, there was a featured Gwen Stefani article that acticle that actually had a trivia section stuck in it. Talk about crappy! I guess that her fans are very dedicated. I would greatly appreciate any help here, although I hope that the content will remain relatively constant. Feel free to change the wording or to move sentences around. I think that it is vastly better than it was over a year ago when it was rated as a B article. I would be interested in any new references that you may have as well. I also do not know the authors of references 12, 14, 20 and 30. If anyone knows, that would be great. These came from Melody Maker, People and the NME.Freddie's #1 Fan Forever aka Bitch For Freddie I find it funny that you are trying to improve Freddie's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you who edit pages not based on facts but on an agenda. I remember the way you edited Brian's Wikipedia page and the Queen Wikipedia page to give the impression that Brian was a dishonest egomaniacal backstabbing jerk. If people stuck to verifiable facts when editing Wikipedia it would be much better. Hopefully people will stick to verifiable facts when working on Freddie's Wikipedia page. His life and legacy are brilliant without alot of Bullshit. |
ok.computer 21.08.2007 19:16 |
PieterMC wrote: Considering the stories recently of articles being edited by the CIA, Apple, The Vatican etc, etc. I would find it unlikely that any decent teacher would accept wikipedia as a valid source of information. Also in March 2007 one of the leading wikipedia administrators was exposed as a fraud. (SNIP)Yeah, but the door swings both ways. You'll find that on serious (and I mean more serious than a rock group) topics, there will be a little more importance placed on accuracy. And less monkeying around by people looking to make an arse of the thing. link which highlights the inaccuracies in Britannica on a par with Wiki. But we could ping-pong this back and forth all night. And what would be the point of that? None. Life's too short. It says so in Wikipedia... |
The Real Wizard 22.08.2007 00:11 |
teleman wrote: Freddie's #1 Fan Forever aka Bitch For Freddie I find it funny that you are trying to improve Freddie's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you who edit pages not based on facts but on an agenda. I remember the way you edited Brian's Wikipedia page and the Queen Wikipedia page to give the impression that Brian was a dishonest egomaniacal backstabbing jerk. If people stuck to verifiable facts when editing Wikipedia it would be much better. Hopefully people will stick to verifiable facts when working on Freddie's Wikipedia page. His life and legacy are brilliant without alot of Bullshit.Amen. |
Jason DeLima 22.08.2007 05:11 |
Erin wrote: This site is much more accurate that wikipedia. ;-) linkThat isn't funny. Uncyclopedia has even better things to say than this whole site does about Queen. link |