I had liked the idea of what MusicBrainz was trying to do so I joined and began going through my large disc collection. Since I decided to rip all of my discs with EAC into the FLAC format. After finding that the majority of my releases either were not in the database or had very little info and no cover art I thought this would be a great idea to scan all the booklets, backs, fronts, spines, and discs. Finding also that many did not have associated works for the songs I started fixing that and having to add writers and musicians to the database. Basically, I could get maybe one or two discs finished a night because of the long process of researching people to make sure I’m adding the correct info. I didn’t mind the process or the time because I felt I’m doing something good. I appreciated the early notes left on my edits that helped me understand the guidelines better. But after this edit https://musicbrainz.org/edit/57667031 I’m done and I only got forty CD’s finished out of the thousand-plus CD’s I have since I have been purchasing CDs since 1987, thanks https://musicbrainz.org/user/paulakreuzer . I thought people with auto edit privileges couldn’t make destructive edits without a voting period. No point in wasting my time helping this group out just to have someone come through and delete it. I had wasted my time helping CDDB out back in the day and look how that turned out.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but that link simply didn’t belong to this artist, so removing it was the right thing to do.
This is not true for links. Autoeditors should make edits votable if they may be controversial, but it is a well established convention that links have to be about the exact artist they are added to, not a related artist.
PS: The correct Wikidata link was by now added to the group where it belongs.
PPS: If you want it I can revert my edit and redo it as a votable edit as explained in the making disruptive edits section of the Autoeditors’ code of conduct, but I doubt the votes will go your way.
In this specific case, the edit is perfectly correct. We only link 1 to 1 between MB and Wikipedia / Wikidata. That means if there’s only an article for a group, we won’t link it to the members, nor the albums by the group - even if the article does, sometimes, include a subsection about them. See the relevant guidelines, which specify “Do not link to anchors on a wider page (Page_Name#Page_Section), even if they are specifically about this artist. You should only add this relationship if the page itself is about the artist.”
Having some information about an individual is better than no information. I added the person as an individual because she was a songwriter on a George Strait release credited as an individual and never heard of the group until reading the wiki article which is what I thought was the point of an encyclopedia, too have all the information you can about a subject. And that article was the only wiki information about her. Not having any information about someone because the only entry is about two sisters instead of two separate articles for each one just seems backward. But if the goal of this project is to not have any information then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I was actually able to get a dozen CDs ripped tonight not having to scan every piece of them and enter all kinds of missing information.
I think you should overthink that. I’ve been there too, but once you accept the rules and see their benefits, you can step a bit back and don’t take it personally.
I didn’t take it personally and I am not mad about it. Just a little backwards in my opinion. Interesting that after making this post tonight the group and the individual artist had a lot of information edits added. So that is a great positive to my complaint.
The goal is for sure to have as much information as possible about someone, but the information also has to be at the appropriate place. Looking at the data for Kacey Coppola now shows the it is possible to add quite some information about her, including the relationship to the duo (which can be linked to the appropriate Wikidata entry).
The problem is what we are claiming is not “this is a page with some information about artist X”, but “this is the Wikipedia page for artist X” So people using the data (like the BBC) will believe that, and show the first paragraphs of that as their biography for the artist, which will look out of place and cause confusion. Plus for example it might lead to Wikidata (which gets matched back by a bot) saying “MusicBrainz says that this artist (the group) has the ID X (for the person)”, which causes further issues down the line.
What can be done, since the Wikipedia license should be compatible, is to add some of the relevant sections in Wikipedia about this specific artist to the MusicBrainz annotation.
Now that is a reason that makes since to me. Did not realize other entities pull from this database to populate their websites I thought it was a tagging and look around database. Is that what the consulting line item on the income financials is about?
No, that’s actually what the (much larger) support items are about (see supporter list).
… I’m actually not sure what the consulting item is about, myself, to be honest!
Edit: apparently the consulting line is for participation stipends in Google Summer of Code and Google Code-In
@therealdero Sometimes this place and its rules can be infuriating. And the way they are sometimes applied impatiently without proper explanation doesn’t help. But if it wasn’t for the rules there would be chaos.
What is missing from this place at times is more of the “whys” in the documentation. So much happens in this forum, but no one has time to put that in to the documentation.
Oh - and even though this is the home of Picard, there are a lot of people who don’t like this place being called a “tagger’s database” You would be surprised as to the many uses this place gets.
Like you, I have also been put off at times, but then I go away and calm down and find some logic to the madness. Then return and add more data. Sometimes it is just tripping over an editor having bad day. Or the comical way that different people see different rules with a different level of importance.
Usually most things can be sorted out in the forum.
Consider reading through the discussion in this topic :