Wikipedia: The Corporation's Best Mate - 'The World According to Chriso' (9/3/09)

I am a long-standing user of Wikipedia and I’m not ashamed to say that I use it as a focal point of reference for research. In a world dominated by expensive and inaccessible resources, it’s concept at least provides information to the masses. But does it? Well, that’s its tagline, but in practice, I’m sad to say, Wikipedia favours only the rich and the established. I’ll explain.

Being an album reviewer with the above-mentioned financial restraints isn’t easy. Unless you work for a music reviewing site or have some sort of established PR network, you aren’t going to get near any review copies – they will, and not incorrectly so, think you’re a chancer. So by some amazing (well, not really) means, I still manage to get hold of at least two upcoming albums a week to do reviews for.

In terms of my credibility as a reviewer or a writer, let’s see what I’ve got going for me. I’m NCTJ-qualified (that’s the nationally-recognized journalism body), I write for a music site and I have a music collection that is constantly renowned by all who hear it as being varied, eclectic and unpredictable. From Mozart to Slipknot, Phil Collins to Dr. Dre. Oh and I’ve been going to gigs and festivals since I was 11. This isn’t a self-promotion piece but I can’t help but be a bit narked by some recent treatment from our aforementioned corporation guardian.

My recent album reviews, unusually, featured an album that was due to be released in 2 weeks’ time (today). Unusual, but essential because quite frankly, there wasn’t much else out last week. This album in question was Chris Cornell’s ‘Scream’ album (I’ve Got the Tunes 2/3/09), which I’d noticed, the “great” Wikipedia did not have a single album review for. Now, as a supporter of Wiki, I added my review to the list - which gave them a grand total of two professional reviews. Which led to

this site receiving the highest traffic it had had since its inception.

However, yesterday I’d noticed that my piece had been removed in favour of “professional reviews” from ‘The Rolling Stones’ (yes, which links to the band), MuzObzor, The Huffington Post (I have no idea, so don’t ask) and Allmusic. Let’s just give you an example of the reviews Wiki DOES allow.

Starsailor, ‘All the Plans’ (from the Guardian)

“Plan A: conquer the world by sounding like U2, Oasis and Doves. Then support James Blunt. Damn. Plan B: fuse all of the above, add some of 2001's acclaimed Love is Here, and record powerful piano rock about love and loss. It's anthemic (Tell Me it's Not Over) and slushy (Hurts Too Much), but it might just work ...”

Chris Cornell, ‘Scream’ (from ‘Rolling Stones’ [or Rolling Stone])

“Hip–hop production god Timbaland oversaw Chris Cornell's third solo album, which begs a question: Can digital–age beats party successfully with rock–god howling? The answer: Only if good tunes are invited.Scream veers between drab–sleek and rock–dude soulful; Cornell's yowl never sounds at home — especially on the "bitch ain't a part of me!" chorus on the lead track. Timbo lays it on thick — piles of guitars, dramatic synths and percussion that at their best achieve a meticulous heaviness. With the exception of the taut "Ground Zero," Scream feels like it belongs in a time capsule, a strange mutation that could only have been born this decade.”

Did those pieces sound like they’re by ‘professional reviewers’? Do they sound like they were written in five minutes? Do they deserve to be given as valid reviews? Well they do cos they’re from The Guardian and Rolling Stone, so that’s the end of it – would be Wiki’s response. For a site that is constantly ridiculed about accuracy, it’s clear they know what side’s their bread’s buttered – so I would advise you NOT to contribute to Wikipedia, as they beggarly ask you to do on their main page, for they are no different to any other faceless corporation, keeping their big boys in check. CM