The Medusa Fora

Noticed that most of the other band members had an encyclopedia entry, so I spent this evening writing one for Phil.

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

It's only a bare bones article at the moment, so any additions/corrections are welcome (anyone can edit the page). I think I've got the basics in there correctly.

A fine bit of writing.

Why the need to mention Phil's sexuality though? It seems out of place. Surely Shane's sexual preference is not mentioned in his WikiPedia entry?

It strikes me as not relevant, really.

DzM wrote:A fine bit of writing.

Why the need to mention Phil's secuality though? It seems out of place. Surely Shane's sexual preference is not mentioned in his WikiPedia entry?

Actually, it is...

Shane is also mentioned on the 'persons of debated lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation' page.

It strikes me as not relevant, really.

Most of the biographies have a section on the person's private life - and Phil has never been quiet about the fact that he is gay. If I knew whether Phil had a boyfriend or not, I'd have added that too...

Great idea, and very well written.

Just a few remarks:
- the missing date of Phil’s departure is 1994
- I’d also leave out the mention of Phil’s sexuality in that very private sense. I personally feel the hunger for intimate privacy of celebrities disgusting – why should we even add to that stupid fashion? The compromise might be just to mention that Phil is an active member of gay rights movement – this is an objective fact that has relevance for an entry in encyclopedia.
- How about reconsidering whether to include the line "lacking the former's natural storytelling ability, pitch-black sense of humour and distinctive vocal style"? It seems to somewhat stick out from the objective encyclopedia article, it’s too much of a subjective evaluation.

Anyway, very well done! Are you thinking about writing entries for the remaining band members as well?

Are any of you "practising" heterosexuals or have you all passed the exams?

It is possible the Radiators made no real impression. On the other hand, "Ghostown" was in influence on Shane MacGowan, Christy Moore, Ronnie Drew, Moving Hearts, The Stars of Heaven, Agnes Bernelle, Seven Nations, U2, Paul Brady, Mannix Flynn, Jum Sheridan, Patrick McCabe and too many others to mention. Last month it was voted one of the Top Irish albums of all time by Irish Musicians (in Hot Press).

George Harrison wrote "Something". The fact that he was in the same band as Lennon & McCartney does not dimiinish that achievement.

The trouble with online encyclopedias is that lazy researchers go there and no further when they want to write about you. They assume that if someone has gone to the trouble of putting one on line that they must have put a LOT of hard work, reaearch and perspective in it. This is why so much poor, inadequate and simply wrong information gets repeated ad nauseum. My late father wrote biographies of Irish vaudeville comedians and I know first hand how frustratingly off-beam the source materials often were.

In a way, it is none of my business what anyone writes about me. I just want to point out that whoever does so, in a world where the online encyclopedia is Gospel is, unknowingly perhaps, taking on an enormous responsibility.

Mr Chevron wrote:Are any of you "practising" heterosexuals or have you all passed the exams?

There's an exam?

Ah jeez. I can't do it with all this pressure.

Mr Chevron wrote:Are any of you "practising" heterosexuals or have you all passed the exams?

Yes, the wording could have been better on that...

I was trying to avoid being blunt (i.e. 'Phil is gay/homosexual). Any suggestions? I searched the web for info on if you were dating at the moment, but I couldn't find anything.

It is possible the Radiators made no real impression. On the other hand, "Ghostown" was in influence on Shane MacGowan, Christy Moore, Ronnie Drew, Moving Hearts, The Stars of Heaven, Agnes Bernelle, Seven Nations, U2, Paul Brady, Mannix Flynn, Jum Sheridan, Patrick McCabe and too many others to mention. Last month it was voted one of the Top Irish albums of all time by Irish Musicians (in Hot Press).

That's exactly the kind of thing that needs to go in an article about the Radiators themselves. I don't really know enough about the band (i.e. I've only heard the stuff on the website so far) to be able to do that myself, but the good thing about wikipedia is that anyone can edit - so anyone here can write about them. You could even do it yourself - if you think you can handle all the stick you'd get from certain nerds because you wrote an entry about your own band...

George Harrison wrote "Something". The fact that he was in the same band as Lennon & McCartney does not dimiinish that achievement.

Yes, but when one thinks of the Beatles, Lennon and McCartney are the guys who immediately spring to mind. It's the same with Shane and the Pogues for a lot of casual fans - I was trying to highlight your own contributions whilst still reamining objective.

The trouble with online encyclopedias is that lazy researchers go there and no further when they want to write about you. They assume that if someone has gone to the trouble of putting one on line that they must have put a LOT of hard work, reaearch and perspective in it. This is why so much poor, inadequate and simply wrong information gets repeated ad nauseum. My late father wrote biographies of Irish vaudeville comedians and I know first hand how frustratingly off-beam the source materials often were.

In a way, it is none of my business what anyone writes about me. I just want to point out that whoever does so, in a world where the online encyclopedia is Gospel is, unknowingly perhaps, taking on an enormous responsibility.

As I've said before, the best thing about Wikipedia is that absolutely anyone can make changes. It actually works very well - the sheer number of contributors means that duff info generally gets removed very quickly. If you, or anyone else here thinks I've got it wrong, then feel free to put me right on it...

Your fans love you and think you rock - they're not going to stand by and let anyone spread misinformation about you.

ShanesTeeth wrote:As I've said before, the best thing about Wikipedia is that absolutely anyone can make changes. It actually works very well - the sheer number of contributors means that duff info generally gets removed very quickly. If you, or anyone else here thinks I've got it wrong, then feel free to put me right on it...

That seems a bit of an evasion. The fact that others can fix errors doesn't absolve an author of the responsibility to fact check, etc.

"Everyone can contribute" is the rallying cry of Open Source Software too, but the truth of the matter is that for every contributor there are (in the case of popular software packages) thousands of consumers that never look at the source code; never submit bug fixes; never become involved in making the project better.

I strongly suspect that Open Source Information suffers from the same problem. For every person that fixes the errata there are a thousand more who will believe the information without question. "No! Really! I read it on WikiPedia! There's a long lost episode of 'Star Trek' where Kirk and Spock kiss! It was never aired though."

I do not believe that I have stated anything factually incorrect in the article...

I am not trying to change your piece. You sought my opinion. Now you have it. Why you ever imagined it would be favourable is a mystery to me. Subect closed. Amen,

ShanesTeeth wrote:I do not believe that I have stated anything factually incorrect in the article...

I really can't speak to that. I'm no expert on Phil's life.

I'm speaking more generically about people feeling (or not) inclined to participate in the process.

My criticisms of Wikipedia and its reliability are not at all unique. Some of the founding members of the project are speaking out about the lack of credibility and due process.

Larry Sanger discussion of Wikipedia reliability
Technology Review article on reliability of online resources.

Don't get me wrong. I think massive democratization of information is a really cool thing. Unfortunately human nature tends to get in the way and that the accuracy of the information then suffers.

Like Phil said - just be sure about what you write. "[The author of an article] in a world where the online encyclopedia is Gospel is, unknowingly perhaps, taking on an enormous responsibility."

Mr.Chevron, I hope you would not mind if i place here a link to your Sunday Independent interview (30 May 2004)? It could be useful for author of Wikipedia article...

Mr Chevron wrote:I am not trying to change your piece. You sought my opinion. Now you have it. Why you ever imagined it would be favourable is a mystery to me. Subect closed. Amen,

My apologies if I have offended you, Mr C. That was not my intent.