Mobile Fidelity and Wikipedia

[Xenu]

I also posted this at sh.tv, but what the heck.

The Wikipedia article on Mobile Fidelity used to have a "Controversies" section, which examined the more dubious "Original Master Recordings" claims that have been made throughout the years.

No more, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mobil ... _Sound_Lab

Coleman Brice (who was the same guy who was not very pleased with my review of the gold "Money" disc on the Patio) sent a nastygram to the Wikimedia foundation, and they removed the entire section.

I remember being kind of surprised that the Controversies section was there in the first place when I first stumbled upon it.

[Crummy Old Label Avatar]

The Wikipedia caves in to the whims of its disgruntled subjects more than the Great Soviet Encyclopedia editors ever did.

[Andreas]

A "controversies" section has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's good that the current article does not claim that "original masters" were always used.

[Rspaight]

A "controversies" section has absolutely no place in a dictionary.

I disagree completely.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. It's well within its mission (some would argue *essential* to its mission) that matters such as this be covered in the entries. While it's not Wikipedia's place to advocate for a certain position, to pretend the issues do not exist is a grave disservice to those who would use it as a reference.

Should an entry for, say, the Ford Pinto not include a mention of the exploding-gas-tank recall? Should an entry for Sinead O'Connor not mention the SNL pope picture incident?

Wikipedia is not a PR vehicle for Music Direct, and I hope they don't continue to act like one.

Ryan

[Andreas]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia.

Sorry, that's what I meant.

I stand by my point. Controversies should be fought in debates, discussions, forums, but not on an encyclopedia.

Did MFSL always use the master? Probably not, but the meaning of "master" is at least debatable (although I agree that calling a digital remix "master" is very misleading). A consensus, even regarding the facts, can not be reached, therefore the section should be left out.

If the fact itself is undisputed, and only its effects or justification or rightfulness are controversial, then the fact should be presented. Example: G.W.Bush led the US forces into a war against Iraq.

If the "fact" itself is disputed, the section has no place in an encyclopedia. Example: Bush lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. I personally believe that this is true (or let's say, I am 99% convinced), but it is prone to interpreation and arguments about semantics.

If the principle of wikipedia is that every controversial issue should be included in the articles, then it will become useless.

PS: I just read the wikipedia article about G.W. Bush, and I find it really well-written. The controversial bits are correctly attributed with sources and not presented as facts or even claims.

The way to do it:

the theory that Saddam had in fact destroyed his WMD capability as he claimed was supported by individuals such as former weapons inspector Scott Ritter [34] and the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. [35]

The reader can make up his own mind by following the links and deciding how credible the cited sources are. The article itself remains neutral.

[krabapple]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia.

Sorry, that's what I meant.

I stand by my point. Controversies should be fought in debates, discussions, forums, but not on an encyclopedia.

Not *fought*, but certainly if there *are* important, legitimate areas of controversy, those should be mentioned in an encyclopedia article.
Certainly an article on cold fusion, for example, is going to include information on the *controversy*.

Did MFSL always use the master? Probably not, but the meaning of "master" is at least debatable (although I agree that calling a digital remix "master" is very misleading). A consensus, even regarding the facts, can not be reached, therefore the section should be left out.

Andreas even *you* say, 'probably not' -- so why shouldn't it be in the article?

If the fact itself is undisputed, and only its effects or justification or rightfulness are controversial, then the fact should be presented. Example: G.W.Bush led the US forces into a war against Iraq.

Utter nonsense! That would be a useless, context free encylopedia of history indeed.

If the "fact" itself is disputed, the section has no place in an encyclopedia. Example: Bush lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. I personally believe that this is true (or let's say, I am 99% convinced), but it is prone to interpreation and arguments about semantics.

It would be wrong to state is as a *fact* that GWB went to war for reason X -- including the reason GWB himself gives -- but it would be quite appropriate to discuss the controversy surrounding the justification for the war. It would be entirely appropriate to say 'The Bush administration gave the following reasons for going to war [ ], but its critics have argued that [ ].' And then give the bases for both views.

If the principle of wikipedia is that every controversial issue should be included in the articles, then it will become useless.

As it would be if every 'fact' is accepted as true. Where does the 'consensus' for Mofis come from, Andreas? Groups like Hoffman's?

PS: I just read the wikipedia article about G.W. Bush, and I find it really well-written. The controversial bits are correctly attributed with sources and not presented as facts or even claims.

Why couldn't the same be done for a controversy section for audio articles?

The reader can make up his own mind by following the links and deciding how credible the cited sources are. The article itself remains neutral.

And again, why couldn't this be done for audio articles too?

[lukpac]

What krab said (I started to respond and then gave up).

[Andreas]

and some critics challenge the company on its claims that gold discs provide a higher-fidelity listening experience (MFSL and other labels later acknowledged that the gold-plating was both a marketing ploy and a way to justify a "premium" price for their niche product).

Additionally, some both inside and outside the audiophile community have criticized MFSL's willingness to stretch its "'''Original Master Recording'''" logo. For example, critics note that several MFSL Mk I releases are not from the original masters; one notorious example is the Beatles "[[Magical Mystery Tour]]". More troublesome to some, though, is MFSL's recent habit of releasing gold CDs that are sourced from [[digital]] master tapes instead of the original analog masters.

This is full of anecdotes and hearsay. I know that this criticism exists and I believe that some of it is justified, but you simply can't write it as above.


Examples of bad crediting:
"Some critics"
"The audiophile community"
"troublesome to some"

Examples of biased expressions:
"marketing ploy"
"niche product"
"notorious example"
"recent habit"

Is the above paragraph really your idea of writing an encyclopedia?

[Andreas]

What krab said (I started to respond and then gave up).

Do you also support anecdotes, hearsay, unspecific sources and biased expressions in an encyclopedia?

[lukpac]

If I was writing that section I would be a lot more diplomatic...

[krabapple]

and some critics challenge the company on its claims that gold discs provide a higher-fidelity listening experience (MFSL and other labels later acknowledged that the gold-plating was both a marketing ploy and a way to justify a "premium" price for their niche product).

Additionally, some both inside and outside the audiophile community have criticized MFSL's willingness to stretch its "'''Original Master Recording'''" logo. For example, critics note that several MFSL Mk I releases are not from the original masters; one notorious example is the Beatles "[[Magical Mystery Tour]]". More troublesome to some, though, is MFSL's recent habit of releasing gold CDs that are sourced from [[digital]] master tapes instead of the original analog masters.

This is full of anecdotes and hearsay. I know that this criticism exists and I believe that some of it is justified, but you simply can't write it as above.


Examples of bad crediting:
"Some critics"
"The audiophile community"
"troublesome to some"

Examples of biased expressions:
"marketing ploy"
"niche product"
"notorious example"
"recent habit"

Is the above paragraph really your idea of writing an encyclopedia?

No, but you were first saying there should be NO controversy in an encyclopedia article. Btw, the claims that Mofi makes for Mofis are no less 'biased'. Claims that gold makes for better sound *are* questionable at best.

Your error is assuming that because I am 'for' including legitimate controversy in encyclopedia articles, that I must be 'for' everything in a particular encyclopedia article.

What you *really* seem to be saying is that statements of fact should be sourced. I am 'for' that too. Btw, technically, this sentence in the remaining article doesn't fit your criteria either:

Many commercial CDs undergo dynamic range compression in order to sound "louder" when played on radio or low-end systems. Some consider this detrimental to the sound quality when reproduced on high-quality equipment.

Note that, quite properly, the wiki entry starts with:

This article or section contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable..

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

If the "controversies" section isn't there, then it really is just a PR vehicle for Music Direct. If an encyclopedia article is to be truly complete, then everything needs to be discussed.

Should an encyclopedia entry on evolution not mention the controversial notion of "intelligent design?" Should an abortion or Roe v. Wade article not mention the efforts of the Christian Right, abortion clinic bombings, etc.?

[krabapple]

An evolution article should certainly include ID in a section on the history of the idea, as well as things like Lamarckianism, with mention of why both have been rejected by scientists. These could get their own wiki entries for fuller analyses of their own histories and claims.

[Rspaight]

The actual removed text was not available for me to review, so my response was not based on it. I was responding solely to the assertion that "controversy has no place in an encyclopedia."

Ryan

[Andreas]

The actual removed text was not available for me to review, so my response was not based on it. I was responding solely to the assertion that "controversy has no place in an encyclopedia."

Ryan

There is a difference between battling a controversy within the article, or simply (and neutrally) stating that a controversy exists, with credited sources.

PS: Wikipedia lets you read all previous versions of the article.

PPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter