Renaissance (USA demogroup) -- help wanted
category: general [glöplog]
what surprised me most about the kosmic entry is who created it.
Is this directed towards the TBL article, or just a generalism.
both, shifter's paste from the tbl article just triggered the outburst :)
both, shifter's paste from the tbl article just triggered the outburst :)
Optimus deserves a Wikipedia entry too!
"Excellent. I think I've now sufficiently frightened every one of you from contributing to latest and greatest cesspool of the internet."
Don't be that hard to yourself, I'll write something here and there without a login like I've done it before. ;)
Don't be that hard to yourself, I'll write something here and there without a login like I've done it before. ;)
Hah. That "warez" article is one of the worst ever. I spent 15 minutes de-"warezer"-ing it. Check the history logs. :)
Radman.....
We've never met, so it's rash of me to call you names and throw accusations in your direction. Maybe you're a real nice guy who doesn't deserve this.
However, I have now taken a look at Wikipedia. I beg you to stop falsifying history by blowing up american activity in the scene. As a matter of fact, the entire american scene and its groups can be summed up in a five line post with some external links.
In the science of history, there is the principle of 'source critique'. This set of tools is there for the historian to determine wether "historical facts" and, mostly historical sources (like Wikipedia can become), are trustworthy or not. To criticise source(s) is the single best way to refine small portions of 'almost certainty' out of, for instance, a historical archive written by a large number of people.
When I read Wikipedia with the eyes of a non-scener (takes training, but...), it gives me the impression that america and the american scene is/was more important than what the scener in me actually knows.
Polluting archives with such...self..favouring perspectives is going to make somebody's job in the future much more difficult than it has to be.
The 'problem' is not so big as I'm blowing it up to be, really. But you and other authors shall please think about this when you write in the Wikipedia.
Sorry for all spelling errors blablabla.
We've never met, so it's rash of me to call you names and throw accusations in your direction. Maybe you're a real nice guy who doesn't deserve this.
However, I have now taken a look at Wikipedia. I beg you to stop falsifying history by blowing up american activity in the scene. As a matter of fact, the entire american scene and its groups can be summed up in a five line post with some external links.
In the science of history, there is the principle of 'source critique'. This set of tools is there for the historian to determine wether "historical facts" and, mostly historical sources (like Wikipedia can become), are trustworthy or not. To criticise source(s) is the single best way to refine small portions of 'almost certainty' out of, for instance, a historical archive written by a large number of people.
When I read Wikipedia with the eyes of a non-scener (takes training, but...), it gives me the impression that america and the american scene is/was more important than what the scener in me actually knows.
Polluting archives with such...self..favouring perspectives is going to make somebody's job in the future much more difficult than it has to be.
The 'problem' is not so big as I'm blowing it up to be, really. But you and other authors shall please think about this when you write in the Wikipedia.
Sorry for all spelling errors blablabla.
Dominei: as I told reed a few posts ago...
Please let scene historians write scene history, it's their purpose, not yours!
You're a musician, not a renowned scene historian!
:)
Please let scene historians write scene history, it's their purpose, not yours!
You're a musician, not a renowned scene historian!
:)
scene historians no less!
Let's get a shotgun and a shovel and end this thread.
Let's get a shotgun and a shovel and end this thread.
I'm going to step in here and say a few words, because I agree with Dominei; yet I also know that Radman does NOT mean to obviate, dilute or mangle the subject.
Take a look at the Kewlers article. It is presented very matter of fact; the information is inclusive, not exclusive; and it does not present opinions either directly or indirectly (via inclusion of some information while excluding other.)
Now take a look at the demoscene article. While it has come a ways since the first time I saw it, it still is written in such a way that implies importance via inclusion and exclusion. And it's this that Dominei has noted above. The US scene is featured prominently; this is a tacit statement of importance. The Russian scene isn't mentioned; this is the opposite. If this were a place for quantification (which it is not) I would guess the Russian scene should contain about 2500% more information than the US Scene, and about 25% less information than the Danish scene. Again, this is not about quantification; it's an illustration of the incorrect way to correct the situation. Instead of adding more information (which in many cases becomes trivia,) instead consider reducing any information to that of statements of what the scene has contained; not where it comes from.
In addition, the article is trying to fill a 'gap' that simply doens't exist. There already is a history of the scene - we're self-documenting. We have diskmags, paper mags, party reports, and demos - all of which provide in some way a small portion of our history. Talking about the scene on wikipedia is akin to - well, you know the quote I'm referring to. And this gives way to analysis and similar literary deconstructions that quite frankly are somewhat useless in my mind.
So I would encourage folks who care about this (I don't, I just seem to hear about it a lot when I'm reading the pouet bathroom wall at work) to rethink the presentation and leave only facts that do not allow information to be misconstrued by inclusion or exclusion. Secondly, to leave some of the history to be found as an excercise by the reader/researcher.
And, in closing, let me say that perhaps the best way to handle this would be to have the people leading the charge of documenting this in Wikipedia NOT be people known for having a tremendous amount of energy, pathos, or emotion. For example, I would make a HORRIBLE choice.
Take a look at the Kewlers article. It is presented very matter of fact; the information is inclusive, not exclusive; and it does not present opinions either directly or indirectly (via inclusion of some information while excluding other.)
Now take a look at the demoscene article. While it has come a ways since the first time I saw it, it still is written in such a way that implies importance via inclusion and exclusion. And it's this that Dominei has noted above. The US scene is featured prominently; this is a tacit statement of importance. The Russian scene isn't mentioned; this is the opposite. If this were a place for quantification (which it is not) I would guess the Russian scene should contain about 2500% more information than the US Scene, and about 25% less information than the Danish scene. Again, this is not about quantification; it's an illustration of the incorrect way to correct the situation. Instead of adding more information (which in many cases becomes trivia,) instead consider reducing any information to that of statements of what the scene has contained; not where it comes from.
In addition, the article is trying to fill a 'gap' that simply doens't exist. There already is a history of the scene - we're self-documenting. We have diskmags, paper mags, party reports, and demos - all of which provide in some way a small portion of our history. Talking about the scene on wikipedia is akin to - well, you know the quote I'm referring to. And this gives way to analysis and similar literary deconstructions that quite frankly are somewhat useless in my mind.
So I would encourage folks who care about this (I don't, I just seem to hear about it a lot when I'm reading the pouet bathroom wall at work) to rethink the presentation and leave only facts that do not allow information to be misconstrued by inclusion or exclusion. Secondly, to leave some of the history to be found as an excercise by the reader/researcher.
And, in closing, let me say that perhaps the best way to handle this would be to have the people leading the charge of documenting this in Wikipedia NOT be people known for having a tremendous amount of energy, pathos, or emotion. For example, I would make a HORRIBLE choice.
god my prose there is annoying.
and keops: I'm one of the very few people who have actually written about the scene, history included, in academic circles. So, I am a scene historian :)
If you know about more such scholarly work; We have a bibliography for this stuff, you know :)
If you know about more such scholarly work; We have a bibliography for this stuff, you know :)
Quote:
about 25% less information than the Danish scene
Only if you compress Macaw's impressive track record at flaming and statutory (verbal) rape to one single line of text.
obviously, I'm not reading irony in anything today :D
Dominei: hello, call me mister irony...
you understood my message the exact opposite of its meaning :)
you understood my message the exact opposite of its meaning :)
Yes, I realised that just too late. I'm a son of a lobster, sister of a seal.
Yes, obviously. :-P
I know we're on Pouet here, but I simply don't have the time to respond to unconstructive backhanded comments right now, sorry.
Anyhow, it should be crystal clear to you that my mission is to get the most accurate facts possible. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if you **THINK** something is wrong, you can edit it. If you feel something is factually incorrect or is conveying a disproportionate point of view to any one side, you can balance it out (or nuke it entirely, the choice is yours).
As for the deadhorse troll over America, I've also stubbed articles for Alpha Design (Finland), SAC (Germany), Impure (Sweden/USA), Mimic (Canada) and a dozen others -- it's a start. If I truly believe its "noteworthy" to a degree and I have an interest in it, then I'd like to share my research with the rest of the world, and Wikipedia is where I've selected to do it, for now.
To claim that "we're self documenting" and "we have diskmags" is pretty much admitting that you've missed the point of Wikipedia completely. Like it or not, Wikipedia is being used more and more as an academic research tool by students and book writers, every one of you have an opportunity here to give things a greater perspective. If you don't want your history recorded by future book writers inaccurately, stop bitching and do something about it.
I will be the first person to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and I'm never ever afraid to ask "stupid questions" here. If you don't ask you'll never learn. On that same token, there is often times more than one answer, and sometimes none of them are right...
The Renaissance article is a prime example of this. I interviewed several founding Renaissance members as well as teh Dan and Pyro to write up what little you see there, but even still much fact checking was needed (such as referring to old NFO files, BBS lists, releases, etc) in order to balance out their decaying brain cells on the history of their own group.
So, you think you know it all? Get to work.
I know we're on Pouet here, but I simply don't have the time to respond to unconstructive backhanded comments right now, sorry.
Anyhow, it should be crystal clear to you that my mission is to get the most accurate facts possible. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if you **THINK** something is wrong, you can edit it. If you feel something is factually incorrect or is conveying a disproportionate point of view to any one side, you can balance it out (or nuke it entirely, the choice is yours).
As for the deadhorse troll over America, I've also stubbed articles for Alpha Design (Finland), SAC (Germany), Impure (Sweden/USA), Mimic (Canada) and a dozen others -- it's a start. If I truly believe its "noteworthy" to a degree and I have an interest in it, then I'd like to share my research with the rest of the world, and Wikipedia is where I've selected to do it, for now.
To claim that "we're self documenting" and "we have diskmags" is pretty much admitting that you've missed the point of Wikipedia completely. Like it or not, Wikipedia is being used more and more as an academic research tool by students and book writers, every one of you have an opportunity here to give things a greater perspective. If you don't want your history recorded by future book writers inaccurately, stop bitching and do something about it.
I will be the first person to admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and I'm never ever afraid to ask "stupid questions" here. If you don't ask you'll never learn. On that same token, there is often times more than one answer, and sometimes none of them are right...
The Renaissance article is a prime example of this. I interviewed several founding Renaissance members as well as teh Dan and Pyro to write up what little you see there, but even still much fact checking was needed (such as referring to old NFO files, BBS lists, releases, etc) in order to balance out their decaying brain cells on the history of their own group.
So, you think you know it all? Get to work.
I don't think any self respecting academician will use wikipedia as a reference. If any student of mine (in the future, not quite THERE yet) ever uses it, I will fail them. To be source critical: Wikipedia is unreliable. Recent events have showed this.
It's not your work that displeases me, radman. it's what you place importance in, and how much importance you place in it.
It's not your work that displeases me, radman. it's what you place importance in, and how much importance you place in it.
All I'm saying is that this useless website, which contains hours of masturbatory text, is not a good place for someone interested in the scene to waste their energies.
As a scener, I object to your self-appointment as my wikipedia historian, and would ask you to step down.
As a scener, I object to your self-appointment as my wikipedia historian, and would ask you to step down.
It's not your work that displeases me, radman. it's what you place importance in, and how much importance you place in it.
Please provide examples. Thank you.
Please provide examples. Thank you.
As a scener, I object to your self-appointment as my wikipedia historian, and would ask you to step down.
Blow me (at Breakpoint'05) :-)
Blow me (at Breakpoint'05) :-)
"Kosmic's members were frequently users of IRC; congregating on the channel #trax."
# (cur) (last) 17:20, 23 Nov 2004 Radman1 m (rv vandalism by IP 62.199.202.21 (mobilixnet.dk).)
# (cur) (last) 16:35, 23 Nov 2004 62.199.202.21
# (cur) (last) 16:28, 23 Nov 2004 62.199.202.21
# (cur) (last) 01:21, 16 Sep 2004 Radman1 m
just a recent one. And judging from the entire demoscene section, I will not trust Wikipedia.
# (cur) (last) 16:35, 23 Nov 2004 62.199.202.21
# (cur) (last) 16:28, 23 Nov 2004 62.199.202.21
# (cur) (last) 01:21, 16 Sep 2004 Radman1 m
just a recent one. And judging from the entire demoscene section, I will not trust Wikipedia.
Provide the links for everyone to see what vandalism was removed.
Dominei, you're the expert, please share with us the five lines of North American scene history. Don't leave anything out, I'm sure I have a lot to learn.