Somethings a little wrong.

Here is the page on Herb Ohta, and here is the page on Herb Ohta Jr..
I have nothing against Julia Nunes, her music is great, but c'mon Wikipedia just went down a step in my mind(and a s a student not a teacher it was pretty good.)

You understand Wikipedia, right? That you're free to impact entries yourself?

You can become a god on Wikipedia if you so desire.

Ahnko Honu said:

You can become a god on Wikipedia if you so desire.

Click to expand...

Thanks for reminding me.

If there is two things to chose from..... The majority always goes with the cute white girl version.

Just like missing children.

Not saying Julia nunes is as good as ohta so dont get mad.

You obviously didn't think things all the way through, liquid_wind. Herb and Herb Jr. were clearly too awesome for Wikipedia.

This is a cool wikipedia page that references the Ohtas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Hawaii

There is alot of good artists that dont have pages.

liquid_wind said:

Here is the page on Herb Ohta, and here is the page on Herb Ohta Jr..
I have nothing against Julia Nunes, her music is great, but c'mon Wikipedia just went down a step in my mind(and a s a student not a teacher it was pretty good.)

Click to expand...

If there's no article about certain players it is not a fault with WikiP. It's just that no one has bothered to write an article about them.

WikiP doesn't absorb info from the air. Someone has to write the articles - and that doesn't mean WikiP staff, it means ordinary web-surfing proles like us. We are the people who create and maintain the WikiP database.

You noticed that there were no articles for the entries you mentioned. I still see no entries. You could add them if you wanted to. :shaka:

"Just like missing children. "

Wow...could someone make Julia Nunes disappear?
Or....do you think Julia could actualy be maddi McCann?

It's more our fault than wikipedia's fault.

Also... this is just the way of things. I'm sure Britney Spears' wiki article is probably larger than Beethoven's. Maybe a bad comparison, but you get my point. Hopefully.

swervy jervy said:

You understand Wikipedia, right? That you're free to impact entries yourself?

Click to expand...

Well, you're free to edit entries (as opposed to "impact" them), but the system works on the concept of an open peer group. So it's overall a reliable and workable system of shared information.

The problems lie in both the fringe areas where specialists or information experts are few and far between so the peer group is small, and in the contentious areas where there may be multiple or competing agendas at play (i.e. the clash between science and mythology over the evolution story).

No to get too far off topic, but Wikipedia highlights a common problem known by historians: the differing and often irreconcilable perspectives on any issue. Just one example can be raised by asking "Who won World War II?"

So it's not perfect, of course, but it's still better than what we had before.