Who here's any good at wikipedia? If someone gets one started, I'm sure we can all contribute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_websites garagepunk.com needs to be here.

We're not looking for a "point of view," just simply redoing the page so it's accurate. As it is right now, it's not. It's incorrect.

mark young said:

It is a main philosophy of the wikipedia to maintain a "neutral point of view", which none of us have.  It's difficult to construct a neutral article from a non-neutral point of view, without raising the eyebrowels of the wikinazis.

 

It is a main philosophy of the wikipedia to maintain a "neutral point of view", which none of us have.  It's difficult to construct a neutral article from a non-neutral point of view, without raising the eyebrowels of the wikinazis.

 

I've been thinking about the Wikipedia page lately, and I really think it needs to be redone. Right now it's pretty much all about the GaragePunk Podcast Network. Obviously that needs to be a PART of the page, but not the title. The site isn't all about the podcast, and hasn't been for a couple of years now. When you go to GaragePunk.com it takes you to the Hideout, so I think someone needs to fix this entry so that it's retitled "GaragePunk Hideout" and is redone so as to include information about the social networking site here, and then include info in that about the GPPN, as well as GRGPNK Records (Hideout comps), etc.

In fact, when you read it, it ain't even correct! It starts off by saying "The GaragePunk Podcast Network is a leading social network, media center and blog portal..." and that's just wrong! The GaragePunk *Hideout* is the social network, NOT the podcast! See what I mean?

But again, I'm not allowed to do this since I own the site (and they know me by what IP addresses I use), so someone else will have to do the editing for me/us. Any volunteers?

We should proceed with caution, as simply linking to a bunch of labels that GPPN plays, without any stronger affiliation with the label, would probably make things worse, since that kind of IS a promotion, rather than a simple organic link.

Like, GPPN plays stuff from Estrus, but GPPN isn't the ONLY outlet for Estrus, and therefore isn't a significant link. If the label owners would mention GPPN in their article, that'd be pretty slick, but popping superfluous links in the See-Alsos all over wikipedia is something they'll probably discourage.

..in my opinion.

And, why hasn't that guy tagged all those other shitty podcasts yet?

Here are some labels I've found with Wikipedia entries. I'm not sure how these can be linked to the GaragePunk Podcast Network page, but any of you are free to look into it and be creative! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomp_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alive_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_The_Red_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goner_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Hip_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaged_Goods_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Neck_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy_For_The_Record_Industry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrus_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirtnap_Records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gearhead_Records mark young said:

He just needs an externally sourced footnote.
I think Kopper needs to round up some GP record labels that have wikipedia page and have them link to GPPN wikipage. It'll help with the missing notoriety within the wiki network. And kopper, do all your editing at work, without being logged in. Johnny Singles said:

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).

I've done just that, see how long it lasts, I ain't gonna hold my breath though...

You can't edit Wikipedia anymore unless you're logged in... mark young said:

He just needs an externally sourced footnote.

I think Kopper needs to round up some GP record labels that have wikipedia page and have them link to GPPN wikipage. It'll help with the missing notoriety within the wiki network. And kopper, do all your editing at work, without being logged in.


Johnny Singles said:

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).

He just needs an externally sourced footnote. I think Kopper needs to round up some GP record labels that have wikipedia page and have them link to GPPN wikipage. It'll help with the missing notoriety within the wiki network. And kopper, do all your editing at work, without being logged in. Johnny Singles said:

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).

Johnny, I have no idea who that guy is. But it doesn't surprise me. Wikipedia's editors are notorious for being pains in the ass. In hindsight I guess I should've created a separate login before I did any of that editing... none of which was "major," by the way. I was simply updating it so it was correct! So it appears as though Wikipedia has flagged the GaragePunk.com page for several issues... notability, linking, conflict of interest, and references. See below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network I can't touch it. I need someone else to go in and fix it so that they're happy. I thought it was fine before... and it probably was until someone saw that I'd made a couple changes and put two and two together. I know a few of you guys have contributed to its development in the past, so I'm hoping you guys can go in and fix it so that they're happy. But it looks like the few edits I've made (after it was already set up by someone else, mind you), caused Wikipedia to flag it as being "edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter." Johnny, just go back in and restore the edits and then argue with him about it on the page's discussion page. What you posted above is all you really need to say. Thanks!

Jesus-frigging-christ there are some wiki-nazis out there!

This 'DreamGuy' just seems to have some sort of chip on his shoulder, it looks like he's just scoured the thing looking for this to make it seem questionable...

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).
I'll admit that linking to all the podcasts could possibly be seen as self-promotion (it's a bit of a tenuous claim though...) but he also removed the quote from Kopper about the founding of the site from the history section! How are the creators intentions for founding a site not relevant to it's history?!

He also claimed 'major edits by the site owner' on Sept 17th even though the thing has barely been significantly changed since my re-write on Aug 15th 2009. 'SmackBot's' point that the article was an 'Orphan' and needed linking into it from other pages was fair enough but it seems that all the issues the page has now are a result of DreamGuy's faffing...

Think I might just have to go and undo his changes out of spite...

Is this someone you've pissed off Kopper?

"Chiefly English but with numerous multilingual contributors." -- yes! I helped with that, GANGSTA!

Evidently, "DreamGuy" noticed Kopper made edits, and i guess editing the article about something that you own violates some neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia's had issues and gained some bad reputation, so I guess they're trying to enforce a few rules now, to keep things neutral. Michael Kaiser said:

The GaragePunk Podcast Network Wikipedia page is still marked for deletion if certain criteria aren't met. What can we do to prevent this from happening once and for all?!

I never realized that Wikipedia was so heavy-handed - especially in light of the garbage that they allow on there with no trouble.

The GaragePunk Podcast Network Wikipedia page is still marked for deletion if certain criteria aren't met. What can we do to prevent this from happening once and for all?! I never realized that Wikipedia was so heavy-handed - especially in light of the garbage that they allow on there with no trouble.

Hey, thanks for finding that! And thanks also to Johnny Singles for the splendid rewrite! You guys rock. kopper Jannell said:

Just added a great link to the references section. Check out this article I found. Pretty good!
Examiner, Indianapolis The Raw Sounds of the Garage Punk Podcast Ne...

Just added a great link to the references section. Check out this article I found. Pretty good! Examiner, Indianapolis The Raw Sounds of the Garage Punk Podcast Network by Gary Schwind

I’ve done a bit of a re-write, added an infobox and spit it up a bit. Made it a bit more wikipedia-ish. Expanded it a bit but 90% of the last edit’s info is still in there… Smash it up, tare it all down, do whatever, go for gold… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network

and once again:

congratulations for the good work dr.kopper!

Now that looks great, waaaay cool Kopper! I like the "gamut." kopper said:

Redirects to this page now, and I updated it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network

Feel free to edit/add info that you think it could use. Thanks!

mark young said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk.com

Get editing, boys!!

Redirects to this page now, and I updated it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network Feel free to edit/add info that you think it could use. Thanks! mark young said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk.com

Get editing, boys!!

IT STINKS LIKE A FUCKIN' a PIECE OF CURROPT CONGRESSMAN!

GR! GRRR! GRRRRRR!!!

"valid references" ... my ass
"external references demonstrating how significant the site is" ... and who decides if the external reference is significant enough? That stinks ...

One day they'll just have to accept this site ... maybe we need to become a garagepunk-cult ... since they seem to like that religious shingaling.

Yeah, Mark Young’s original was deleted by the wiki-police because no one could find external references demonstrating how significant the site is - apparently us insisting that we’re all cool as fuck just doesn’t cut it...

I’m trying to draft a new entry but most searches for garagepunk.com or The Hideout bring up either officially related stuff (and a site cant promote itself) or blog entries, which aren’t valid references (you shouldn’t have been so busy Kopper man)

Does anybody know of an article on another music site or in a magazine that mentions the original garagepunk.com, The Hideout or the podcast network? (I’m sure I remember something in Ugly Things)

There are a whole lot of much less worthy sites that have an entry so I’m sure we can put something together (if the damn Christians can do it...)

So now, once more please for slow BLOCKHEADS:
What?!! You put it up, and it was deleted?!?!?!?!!?!!!!!

Talk about selective perspective on importance and protofascism then. Wiki you ain't Fuzzkers... you are F....

Jesus Freak? Christian rock music? I'm glad I don't live under THAT rock!

So, according to Wikipedia The Garage Punk Hideout is a candidate for ‘speedy deletion’ for struggling to ‘indicate the importance or significance of the subject...’ but The Jesus Freak Hideout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Freak_Hideout) is perfectly acceptable... The world truly is a terrifying place friends...