Category talk:Articles with missing references

Muse fancite

I'm not too keen on making Musewiki too encyclopediary, it's nice that we have citations on things so users can trust the information and that it's from sources (and they can judge whether or not the source is reliable or not). But with the whole idea of making almost everything cite required sort of demotivates others from wiki'ing. The login process is tedious enough (I would consider making the whole wiki editable by anyone but only until some cool form of captcha is implemented, and that itself is tedious) and its making it almost a requisite to cite information entered sort of puts people off even more.

I can understand wikipedia using the whole citation thingy since people reference to it in their coursework and stuff so they should strive to remain accurate, but Musewiki is more of a fansite than an encyclopaedia, there is an encyclopaedia element but its still a fansite where users can write things that are mere rumours, you'll see that Matt Bellamy's page is one of the most visited pages purely because of all the comedy and slightly inaccurate stuff we (and most me) write about him, so yeah. *shrugs*

--crazybobbles 14:04, 15 May 2007 (BST)

If it's more than a fansite than an encyclopedia (i.e. where groupies roam), then I'm afraid I've joined the wrong project ... --Tene 20:53, 15 May 2007 (BST)

That isn't to say I object to the interface (which is separate from the information) being humorous, just so long as it's clearly not meant to be "true". --Tene 20:54, 15 May 2007 (BST)

Hehe you'll be surprised with the amount of things I've wrote that are actually true! The band do get up to some crazy antics and all but some of the stuff aren't necessarily referencable if that makes sense.

I'm all good for making sure the information is accurate and reliable, but perhaps the idea of having everything traced back to a reliable source is a bit far fetched, i mean a good example would be the old old gigs, it's technically dependant on memories from fans to get them properly going. I wouldn't mind having everything completely cited but realistically speaking I dont think it's possible (especially with really old things), and it sort of gives the wiki a sort of incomplete feeling to it whenever we look at every line made and find out that it's missing a reference. The main reason why I dubbed this site as a fansite more than an encyclopaedia is that I was hoping the demographic of the site would be more focused on fans rather then people "studying" the band. I want fans to appreciate the minor minor details of the bands that other fansites don't have, there's tonnes of things on here that I never knew about the band and I enjoy reading it as a fan. Encyclopaedia gives it this sort of academic feel to it.

So yeah, i'm not saying completely abolish the need for citations, I think its a good idea, but perhaps not really one of the key areas that we need to focus on if you get me. I just don't want Musewiki to become too bureaucratic and wikipedia esque since editing there is pretty hostile since theres SO much you need to do to be able to get one piece of information put forward --crazybobbles 02:28, 16 May 2007 (BST)

Whoever mentioned bureaucracy? I didn't say we should start getting rid of information that isn't cited ... I just think we should be encouraging people to do so when they can. --Tene 02:19, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Ah, thats good then haha, was worried that it was getting all bureaucratic and wikipediary. As long as information isn't removed because it's not cited than I'm cool, we're getting all the information we need and we can work on ensuring that it's cited as a bonus --crazybobbles 11:41, 17 May 2007 (BST)