AnimeMusicVideos.org Wikipedia's entry.

FPPain · Post by **FPPain** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:25 am

Hi everyone.

I started the wikipedia entry page about AnimeMusicVideos.org, I hereby require your help expanding the article, I have been trying to articulate the complex intricacies of the English mother tongue, but my limited knowledge do not permit me to do so.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animemusic ... Videos.org wikipedia article.</a>

Plus, I sincerely think AnimeMusicVideos.org deserves a good article in the free encyclopedia, and we should all contribute.

Best Regards,

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:16 pm

The very least you could do is qualify statements like

making it one of the biggest communities in the world of the internet, and by far the first in its genre.

with hard data. Wikipedia already has enough unsubstantiated crap / original "research" as is.

Statistics are also unnecessary, especially when they change daily and are redundantly given.

I've erased that part of it, and made the introduction less gushingly fanboyish.

Actually, I don't think this site deserves a Wikipedia entry at all; I don't believe it's notable enough. I've had my share of battles in VfDs, though, and I'm not in the mood for another one, so I'll tack on some stuff re: copyright battles and wait for someone else to submit one.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:46 pm

Hey,

Not to mention that most of the statements are riddled with false information. Having no information is better than having false information. Please get the facts correct before posting. But even more important than that, relevant information for people who don't know what the Org is all about is needed more than just some recent events.

Phade.

O-Kagachi · Post by **O-Kagachi** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:51 pm

Heh, when the creator says something is wrong with it, you seriously screwed up somewhere.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:38 pm

Phade wrote:Hey,

Not to mention that most of the statements are riddled with false information. Having no information is better than having false information.

If the statements I added are "riddled with false information" (and I assume you are speaking to me, since you decided to revert all edits), then your problem is with AnimeNewsNetwork, Lawrence Lessig, and the Financial Times. It's not with me.

My additions, as anyone can see, were simple paraphrase and citation.

Phade wrote:But even more important than that, relevant information for people who don't know what the Org is all about is needed more than just some recent events.

Which is why I held off on writing anything else. Someone with readily available links to authoritative sources of information can write that.

Technically, you could have written something, but I suppose that might fall under the vanity rules. It would have looked even worse without cited sources, too.

bum · Post by **bum** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 pm

Wouldnt it be a good idea for this site to keep away from any unnesesary exposure?

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:01 pm

bum wrote:Wouldnt it be a good idea for this site to keep away from any unnesesary exposure?

Maybe. It's a futile task, though, as any search engine can attest to. So one might as well just go along with the flow.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:07 pm

trythil wrote:
bum wrote:Wouldnt it be a good idea for this site to keep away from any unnesesary exposure?
Maybe. It's a futile task, though, as any search engine can attest to. So one might as well just go along with the flow.

This, I suppose, also makes my "not notable enough" objection a little ridiculous, so I'll retract that. Being hit #6 in a Google search for "music video" is pretty good.

Org Profile · Post by **Phade** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:46 am

Hey,

trythil: No, the comments were not directed at you. From what you said, you just deleted parts and cleaned up the into (I assumed the sentence at the top, not the paragraph in the middle; I didn't bother looking over the article history). The entry said that ANN revealed the news of the Evanescence issue. This is not true since the Org revealed the issue (any anonymous user who read the forum could have learned about it) while ANN simply reported about it to their readers. Also, this site does not ban the upload of Evanescence, et. al., videos as stated in the entry; the site simply does not allow the download of these videos. If in the future we find some method of allowing site visitors to view and/or download the videos, having the videos on hand would be a good thing.

bum: Give that man a cigar.

trythil: If we were concerned about search engines, we could construct a robots file to disallow the indexing of this site. Most popular search engine crawlers respect the wishes put in robots files. A wikipedia entry, on the other hand, is outside the passive control of this site and would have to be actively policed by knowledgeable persons if facts are to be correct. However, I agree with you that this site is not (yet) worthy of a wikipedia entry and I would like to discourage members from trying to maintain an entry there.

Phade.

trythil · Post by **trythil** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:26 pm

Phade wrote:Hey,

trythil: No, the comments were not directed at you. From what you said, you just deleted parts and cleaned up the into (I assumed the sentence at the top, not the paragraph in the middle; I didn't bother looking over the article history). The entry said that ANN revealed the news of the Evanescence issue. This is not true since the Org revealed the issue (any anonymous user who read the forum could have learned about it) while ANN simply reported about it to their readers.

Right, but the source of the information, as quoted in the Wikipedia rticle, is AnimeNewsNetwork, and the text added to the Wikipedia article makes that very clear. It does not matter who broke the story first; what matters is corresponding source and paraphrase.

Linking to the announcement thread would also be possible, in which case the additional "AnimeNewsNetwork reported..." phrase would be unnecessary. I did not do that because I wanted to use sources external to the site.

Also, this site does not ban the upload of Evanescence, et. al., videos as stated in the entry; the site simply does not allow the download of these videos. If in the future we find some method of allowing site visitors to view and/or download the videos, having the videos on hand would be a good thing.

Fair enough.