Any interest in using Wikicities to create an AMG alternative?

And imagine Cover-connections if you could navigate through a network of interlinked similar covers :-)

*coughs*

which is not what i use AMG for (sorry, Ned)

WAH. (Understood, though.)

http://www.discogs.com/

How else are we going to learn about stuff like the ANDREW WK era of WOLF EYES?

i dunno, i think, say, alex could come up with total authoritativeness on, oh, i dunno, maybe a killing joke wiki if given the opportunity.

I can't imagine there'd be *anything* else on the web that would have that perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ALBUM

I would expect Genesis' 80s and 90s output does hardly get a lot of 5s in the prog archives though?

hrmmm. i really like the idea of this community building its own thing... but that is already in place.

What stands is fantastic. But it's very hard to get at the old, good stuff. A wiki would capture that better. If I want to know opinions on a band here, I can search for it (slow). Or start a new thread (fast, up-to-date, but losing the good stuff that already exists.) A wiki format wouldn't replace ILM, but might give it a second, more timeless layer of memory.

And the point is ILM is such a good community, such a spin-off secondary layer would be very worthwhile.

In place of using the ILX engine, the tab for Google or the other stand-in above it often works good enough in a pinch.

Or start a new thread (fast, up-to-date, but losing the good stuff that already exists.) A wiki format wouldn't replace ILM, but might give it a second, more timeless layer of memory.

Hmmm, another collection of aggregated computerized residue.

And the point is ILM is such a good community, such a spin-off secondary layer would be very worthwhile.

There is also a charm to the chaotic nature of the material dredged by the ILM search function, a charm that is entirely missing from the wikipedia's of the world.

I still use a lot of books on writing and music. I don't see abandoning them for the Internet wisdom wiki-style on a subject. One thing I have noticed about collections of wisdom and history on the Internet. They tend to collectively forget in idiosyncratic ways anything that was important pre-Internet or pre- the generation that is involved in creating the new collection of "content." So the history develops holes, holes not apparent to the passerby or dilettante but fairly obvious to people who know the subject under consideration.

However, this doesn't impede the march of progress. And people always want to add their part to the canard/meme of putting all information at your fingertips on the wires, somewhere, so do what thou wilt.

I suppose what I really believe in is "densely linked" hypertexts, which is what wiki becomes. Whereas ILM is a fairly sparsely linked hyper-text to my mind.

I'm unlikely to fill a post with 5 links to other posts, precisely because I can't find those links easily enough relative to the work of posting.

For example, I posted my Broadcast thread yesterday without checking to see if there were other Broadcast threads and linking to them. In wiki, I'd have written BroadCast in the first sentence and links would have been made. When someone posts a "Broadcast S/D" thread next year, she probably won't link back to my thread.

OTOH, in a wiki with a BroadCast page, you could have /SearchDestroy, /POO, subpages. Cover-connections pages could link every cover-image to the appropriate band. All those lists like "100 top accordion tracks" would be put in context. We could evolve our own CatagoryCategory folksonomic classification of bands and genres. People's names could quickly be followed back to their "introduce yourself" profile, etc.

But clearly you don't want to steal from the discussion forum. Maybe it's better to have a few people copying relevant chunks from ILM to a wiki, and an easy way to link to it from this forum (eg. if Wiki:BroadCast automatically became a link to it)

Oh, you mean like what's in the Village Voice, altie weeklies, Rolling Stone, Mojo and Classic Rock only you don't get paid and there's no copy editing to save your ass.

Stupid Internet, they'll just let anybody in.

Isn't it great!

Here's my idea. Someone assigned the organization of the wiki-style entry of AC/DC should work hard to make sure everyone understands Bon Scott was gay. If there's a review of "Let There Be Rock," one of the finest heavy boogie albums of all time, a pop-up window or sidebar should develop, explaining how Bon Scott was determined to be a gay man.

The song "Bad Boy Boogie" could be highlighted with a link, bringing up the lyrics and the interpretation, that they are obviously the lyrical conceits of a gay man.

The nice thing about the Internet is that it allows you to correct the misunderstandings of the real world without having to go through an editor or anyone who would get in the way.

Actually, a wiki companion to ILM could be a nice thing. You don't even have to copy anything over from ILM. You could just create an index to ILM posts based on band-name. So you could go to the wiki page for "Broadcast" (to continue the example above) and see a list of links to all the posts and/or threads about the band. This is something that would grow organically over time - as people searching through the archives find relevant material about a particular band, they could add that information to the wiki page.

Ok George, I re-read yr earlier post and I see what you're getting at.

But c'mon, we're all Post-Modernists now. Isn't yearning for truth or fact or authoritiveness terribly reactionary?

;)

Yes!! Luddite, too.