Well, I never got a response to my email to the moderator who deleted my entry on Wikipedia. I did more reading up on submission criteria for entries on music. It seems that Theocracy, the band I did the write-up on, didn’t fit their criteria on band/artist submissions. Two of the things that the band didn’t have going for them: 1) the artist needs to have had at least two full length albums released by a record label and/or 2) needs to have been reviewed by a “major publication”. They only have one album out (they’re working on their second release now) and they were only reviewed by review sites and minor publications. Bummer, huh? They’ll fit the criteria in time…
What really burns me up about Wikipedia, besides all the reading up to do on various submission criteria (besides music entries, there is a LOT of research one has to do before deciding their entry is “worthy”), is the fact that I honestly sent a polite, well-thought out email to this moderator/editor and he/she never bothered to respond with even a curt reply. I’ll still use Wikipedia for some research, but this person just gave the encyclopedia site a bad name, in my opinion.
This is yet another observation that the indians need to be allowed to define the world a little more, and the chiefs need to back off on the control (or less chiefs are needed). Cheers!
Wikipedia is not a reliable source at all. I would not trust it.
I also wouldn’t trust Wikipedia… ever since I read what they wrote on childfree people my impression of Wikipedia was that it wasn’t reliable, neither was it particularly well managed. And that certain folk wanted all the control… kind of defeats its proclaimed purpose.