pouët.net

"Kosmic's members were frequently users of IRC; congregating on the channel #trax."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kosmic_Free_Music_Foundation&diff=5172116&oldid=5023424

Way to go Sherlock. Guess who wrote that.

Keep 'em coming, please. I'll enjoy this. Like I said, WHEN I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it.

So far you're just proving my point.

radman <3

Did anyone catch the Larry Groznic column in last week's The Onion criticizing the Weird Al Yankovic Wikipedia entry? Hilarious, and relevant. I don't think they post the previous issue free anyone or else I'd like it.

certainly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pilgrimage_%28demoparty%29&oldid=7784930
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pilgrimage_%28demoparty%29&oldid=7785999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage_%28demoparty%29

from #pixel 11/23/2004, CET:

[19:20] <dominei> GargajUD: specific parties shouldn't have their own entries. external links will do.

like it -> link it

Phoenix: the 5 lines where more a rhetorical way to say: just don't play it up :)

of the 10.000 words I've written about the scnene recently, I'd put 10 sentences on wikipedia. Of course, now I've lost belief in it, so... :)

Dominei, you are making poor arguements. Please try harder if you really care. You've posted some links to Pilgrimage (demoparty) on Wikipedia and a quote from Gargaj...

...So what? This doesn't prove anything you've said so far. Do you have a point?

My arguments are poor because you refuse to understand them.

My claim is that the Wikipedia entry in total is very unbalanced according to actual fact. My next claim is that Wikipedia is unreliable.

A lot of entries there are written by a person believing "[19:20] <dominei> GargajUD: specific parties shouldn't have their own entries. external links will do." is a quote FROM Gargaj.

If you refuse to see the points and the proof, I can't really help you anymore without becoming banal.

yeah wikipedia seems to be a great source of information, like that fairlight article for example, if i wanted to know a simple fact like how long the group has been around i just had to wait some 6 months and 30 edits for the correct information to appear.


but i am always a bit surprised by people who are so fond of trying to reach out to the public, and force the scene on them, wether they like it or not

I don't see the need for every single party to have it's own wikipedia entry. A single entry with a small paragraph for each party would be more than sufficient.

besdies, how much of the grand wikipedia audience would actually give a shit about all our parties? Seems excessive to me.

It's because people with the believe that they're the centre of this universe are adding these entries! So, it's not reliable at all. But i dont dislike all Americans *hugs witeshade and truck* :P

i.e. please, Radman, don't dictate the direction of the entries, but take a contributory role. It's the ownership aspect that we're sensing, and from our perspective, it's misguided.

We do appreciate the effort. Well. Ok, I don't, cuz I think you should put it into something useful. But I'm sure someone else does - more than likely someone who'll never step foot in pouet (and have to then clean their shoes.)

Dominei, you are making poor arguements. Please try harder if you really care. You've posted some links to Pilgrimage (demoparty) on Wikipedia and a quote from Gargaj...

thanks.

ROFL@hollowman

Oh, and Phoenix: yes, VERY much in line with this conversation, and YES, they keep the previous 3 issues online. Everything else is paid content.

Which is why, of course, archive.org rules! (:

and if I had quoted Gargaj it wouldn't have been a 'weak argument'.

Apologies, quote TO Gargaj. ;-P

Again, if you feel something is unbalanced, do something about it. Otherwise you're just another whining asshole.

I'm neither whining nor am I an asshole (don't start with calling names, I have a VERY good imagination :). I'm simply trying to say that Wikipedia (mostly demoscene section) is quite unusable for anything than generating misunderstanding.

And I don't _feel_ this. I _observe_ it.

Let's see here, you're unable to back up your pack of lies, and meanwhile you are bitching on Pouet about the very same thing you're as of yet still unable to prove with any concrete evidence.

Whining asshole = winner.

It's simply you that don't see the evidence. It is presented. Almost the entire section is evidence in itself for that matter.

I did a test (see the links). I rewrote the pilgrimage article and used the word "insignificant". In a scope as large as Wikipedia's, Pilgrimiage is hardly worth a paranthesis. Yet you call it vandalism and exclude the word "insignificant". As a matter of fact, the ONLY SIGNIFICANT THINGS TO COME FROM THE AMERICAN SCENE ARE HORNET AND RENAISSANCE.

Just face it :)

We'll pick this up after I get home from beers. Or tomorrow :)

Your comments are inflammatory at best. Rather than say completely BASELESS things such as the "ONLY SIGNIFICANT THINGS TO COME FROM THE AMERICAN SCENE ARE HORNET AND RENAISSANCE", contribute something in a neutral point of view or contribute an a new paragraph or 3 to the Demoscene article.

Otherwise you're just reinforcing others beliefs...

of you.

Let's face it: Demoscene is insignificant niche and we should probably just collectively drop everything about it. It's not an essential bit of knowledge to the mankind like Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, Prime Number Shitting Bear, Extreme ironing, Meow Wars or Eric Buisson.

I <3 _216_. :)

Anyhow, the only thing Dominei has been able to consistently demonstrate is his ignorance of the global Demoscene and a complete inability to backup his baseless words.

Good job Dominei. You'll fit in just fine.