Heh, our heros went into the biggest available (iirc) encyclopedia :)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_%28Band%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_%28band%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Nolan
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Rock#Progressive_Rock_heute
Well, the text needs some work....and additions.
Fortunatly I'm working on a biography, so hopefully lots more info will be available somewhere out there after summer... the guys deserve the full story to be told. A lot has happened over the last 10 years, I realised while writing and doing interviews....
Cool 8)
*Gonna check other bands right now...
Edit: Ayreon@Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayreon)
Ha! Just noticed the text under your avatar, Appelmoes??... Are you an aspiring honorary norse?
The bit about illicit drugs is rather insulting though!! :o
Quote from: Angel-of-Music on Tue, 2005-11-29, 17:07:58
The bit about illicit drugs is rather insulting though!! :o
huh? where did you find that?
Peter, On the third link from the top which ends in "Clive Nolan".
Its an article/entry about Clive, and says "Clive used to be really .....[edit: took out that crap. Peter]."
Who wrote this?? ???
I've read it too. Not a nice thing to say imo.
The rest is readable.
Didn't know he wrote anything for Edge Of Sanity.
A pleasant surprise.
MAD. 8)
Quote from: Angel-of-Music on Tue, 2005-11-29, 19:17:28
Peter, On the third link from the top which ends in "Clive Nolan".
Its an article/entry about Clive, and says "Clive used to be really fat but somehow he managed to lose about 25 kilos in less than a year. He's probably taking illicit drugs and partying too hard."
Who wrote this?? ???
I don't know, some bastard probably. I took it out.
Quote from: maddox on Tue, 2005-11-29, 19:59:02
I've read it too. Not a nice thing to say imo.
The rest is readable.
Didn't know he wrote anything for Edge Of Sanity.
A pleasant surprise.
MAD. 8)
I just read that. It's not a nice thing to say.
I say let's get out there and twat 'em! If they want a barney we'll give 'em one! We'll all crowd around, and pin 'em down, then we'll wax their pubic hairs! They'll be out of there quicker than a Hare with a bum full of dynamite! >:(
Errr... excuse me. I seem to have gotten carried away... :-[
Seriously though, that's incredibly irresponsible, it's slander. Encyclopedias can't just make up stuff, random speculation and dirt on people like some kind of tabloid!! They could be sued.......I smell a libel trial......
who in the hell writes for them anyway?? We should contact them. >:(
I like that visual of the hare with the dynamite. Works for me! :-\
I had seen that wikipedia bullshit quite awhile ago and was really hoping nobody had seen it, especially our fearless leaders. That's tabloid fare and unfortunately the way it comes off is that it's something to be taken seriously. Just glorified reviews...with some facts thrown in is all wikipedia is. At least with some of the spoof websites out there(I won't mention their names) you know it's just a joke and that underneath whoever they poke fun at is really someone they admire and respect.
It is slanderous and I would definately write them to let them know your feelings about it. And not necessarily from being a fan, but objectively. Because getting people, 'and fans' riled up is their aim in doing that anyway. I wouldn't write anything on any message boards at their site because that just gives them more attention, which is what they want. I think the boyz threatening to sue and getting money out of them should do the trick. Usually does. :P
Wikipedia is a "Wiki" in the first place, and that means, that everybody can contribute to the content. Like, everybody. And becuase that represents quite a huge number of people, there's always dumbheads amongst them. That's what the community is here for, to keep things clean.
And therefore it's not a reliable source.
I hate unreliable sources...
This way you have to trust people who, most of the time can't be trusted.
Quote from: Peter on Wed, 2005-11-30, 13:29:34
Wikipedia is a "Wiki" in the first place, and that means, that everybody can contribute to the content. Like, everybody. And becuase that represents quite a huge number of people, there's always dumbheads amongst them. That's what the community is here for, to keep things clean.
That's the most dangerous manifestation of the internet way. People start to trust this -pedia to be an encyclopaedia, thereby trusting it like they wouldn't trust other info on the net. (Providing they do filter the info elsewhere on the net at all. I know people who has yet to learn that!)
I recently bought the Norwegian equivalent to Encyclopaedia Britannica. That's hard core quality reliable information for you. And faster to look up than google too. We did a test, the wife and I. Some times, she was faster with the pc than I was with the books, but then she had to double check and consider the reliability...
Wikipedia is a great and wonderful idea. It will never work. Not without changing the nature of it.
One of the biggest and revolutionary principles of a true WIKI is that not only can you contribute new material, but you can edit all existing material you believe to be wrong. Sounds to me like a tough balance between anarchy if you have fully open access, and censorship if you limit or moderate editing. So he/she who posts most can influence the truth? This leads to a belief that those with the most time on their hands are therefore most likely to have their opinion and beliefs imposed upon a WIKI and those who read it, which is a kind of power. Sounds like a song in there somewhere :)
Kind of sad really, especially when some irresponsible (insert a suitably derogatory term here) can post anything they like about anyone without fear of prosecution (alegedly).
Definitely a good point. What good is an encyclopaedia if you cannot trust it at all?
...then it is always a good idea to cross-check the information, isn't it?
Quote from: keyboardistmatt on Wed, 2005-12-07, 18:25:58
...then it is always a good idea to cross-check the information, isn't it?
Now you've got it. Wikipedia
is reliable, as long as everybody contributes facts he has proven to be true himself.
And there are always some @#$% ******* who post things to fool the rest of the world! >:(
Not reliable.
Any unforgiving soul can post any crap he wants.
Quote from: keyboardistmatt on Wed, 2005-12-07, 18:25:58
...then it is always a good idea to cross-check the information, isn't it?
A respectable encyclopaedia is the reference point. No need for cross checking, unless the information is badly outdated. And against what would you cross check it? Wikipedia is like any other info on the internet, then. Unreliable. Might be true, might not be true. You never know. Sometimes it's nice just to know. So I'll stick to my huge books in my lifetime. If it says somewhere behind a persons name (1902-), by 2010 I'll just assume he's dead. I could always cross check against the Guinnes Book of Records. If I can't find him there by 2028, he's dead alright!! ;D
(http://the-ricochet.net/files/uf008622.gif)
;D
LOL ;D
Quote from: Peter on Mon, 2005-12-12, 12:17:46
(http://the-ricochet.net/files/uf008622.gif)
;D
Is that you, Peter? ;)
Ok, just happened to check the Wikipedia link, and it seems, happily, that someone has done their homework. They changed that particular couple of lines on the Nolan page. Very good. ;)
Maybe there should be a summary from "The Salt and the Sand" on there.
So the situation today is that there is barely anything about Arena on the English language Wikipedia site, which I find terribly embarrassing. Come on, this is my favorite group.
Any dumbass garage group today has much more info about them on Wikipedia.
Can anybody tell me what the deal is? I tried to learn from reading the posts in this thread, but there were only discussions to and fro.
I myself have spent altogether hundreds of hours reading articles on the English language Wikipedia site. Rarely have I found errors or misuses, and in such cases I have usually corrected them myself. I have virtually only good things to say about this fantastic resource. I've learned so much that I simply can't express it.
I would gladly offer my services to get some useful material onto Wikipedia. I don't have any authority visavis Arena, but I know Wikipedia better than most others, and I know a fair bit about Arena and side projects - and I'm pretty good at English.
Nicky.
Quote from: Deenfan on Wed, 2005-11-30, 17:44:37
Wikipedia is a great and wonderful idea. It will never work. Not without changing the nature of it.
Well, I have a surprise for you, Deenfan: Wikipedia
does work, in fact very well, in fact it's fantastic. One of the fastest and surest ways to gain knowledge. And about topics (like Arena) that you'd never find in the old-fashioned encyclopedias. Anyone who's spent hundreds of hours on Wikipedia, like I have, knows that.
On top of it, most Wikipedia articles are well-written, a pleasure to read.
So what more can you ask for?
Let's not speculate, let's try out.
Nicky.
Quote from: Nicky007 on Wed, 2007-06-06, 00:17:23
Well, I have a surprise for you, Deenfan: Wikipedia does work, in fact very well, in fact it's fantastic. One of the fastest and surest ways to gain knowledge. And about topics (like Arena) that you'd never find in the old-fashioned encyclopedias. Anyone who's spent hundreds of hours on Wikipedia, like I have, knows that.
On top of it, most Wikipedia articles are well-written, a pleasure to read.
So what more can you ask for?
Let's not speculate, let's try out.
Nicky.
Agreed :)