Reason's Wikipedia Page Has Been Completely Gutted

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
challism
Moderator
Posts: 2280
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 06 Jan 2021

It used to be full of great information about Reason. Now there is barely anything there. Is this sabotage or what?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReasonTalk Rules and Guidelines

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 7712
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 06 Jan 2021

Maybe someone is trying to fix it? You can see these notes at the top when visiting:
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.
Feel free to improve the article, but this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed, and the article must not be blanked. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

This article relies too much on references to primary sources.
Please improve this by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
(October 2015)

User avatar
challism
Moderator
Posts: 2280
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 06 Jan 2021

I noticed that. Kind of funny that too many references and primary sources are reasons to delete a page. I guess they want more hearsay and conjecture; it is, after all, WIkipedia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReasonTalk Rules and Guidelines

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 7712
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 06 Jan 2021

challism wrote:
06 Jan 2021
I noticed that. Kind of funny that too many references and primary sources are reasons to delete a page. I guess they want more hearsay and conjecture; it is, after all, WIkipedia.
I think the issue might be not enough sources? Since it's asking for secondary sources.

From the screenshot, I can seen that propellerheads.se is a very frequently used source. And while this page might not make certain claims about Reason being "the best" or "the first" etc., I can see how a wikipedia page that mostly uses a primary source (in this case the website of the software itself) could be subject to bias and be problematic. Perhaps easier for them to flag pages that don't have enough secondary sources versus weeding through it to find any potentially biased information. That's my guess.

User avatar
challism
Moderator
Posts: 2280
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 06 Jan 2021

And a good guess it is. You're probably right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ReasonTalk Rules and Guidelines

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1388
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 06 Jan 2021

Well at some point they said the article was laid out as a promotion and most of what it did was talking about the app functionality.

Which is odd because if you look at other DAW pages, that's what it is.

User avatar
lowtom
Posts: 71
Joined: 29 Sep 2017

Post 06 Jan 2021

From my own experience, some Wikipedia mods have double standards and are there only for promoting particular products or artists.
:reason: :refill: :re:

User avatar
integerpoet
Posts: 14
Joined: 30 Dec 2020
Location: East Bay, California

Post 10 Jan 2021

It does seem a DAW which has been commercially viable for two decades should qualify for coverage. But a lack of secondary sources might indicate the page lacks cultural relevance. And they do want to cover only stuff that people care about.

Otherwise, I wouldn't have to post my autobiography once a day to counter them taking it down every day!

P.S. It's delightful when they reject edits to a page on a famous comedian because they don't cite a source… but the editor is said comedian. The joke writes itself.

chaosroyale
Posts: 549
Joined: 05 Sep 2017

Post 11 Jan 2021

This is a common and serious misunderstanding of A: what sources are and B: the reliabilty of Wikipedia and how to use it.

In the case of historical records, Primary sources are extremely valued, but they must also be interpreted by secondary sources for the benefit of modern readers who may not know how to read the original languages or understand the original contexts.

In the case of modern commercial products, "primary" sources such as press releases and websites are entirely marketing propaganda, and are useless for getting an objective overview of the subject and it's context within society and culture, unless there is careful editing and expert secondary sources.

Wikipedia is an excellent resource when looking at major articles where they are correctly sourced with extensive references - as long as you check the references. It does not deserve a reputation as unreliable. It's the minority interest stuff that is a shitshow.
challism wrote:
06 Jan 2021
I noticed that. Kind of funny that too many references and primary sources are reasons to delete a page. I guess they want more hearsay and conjecture; it is, after all, WIkipedia.

Thousand Ways
Posts: 177
Joined: 18 Jun 2015

Post 11 Jan 2021

I noticed this the other day. Couldn't believe how brief the entry was. I checked ProTools and Logic Pro for comparison. Wow.
chaosroyale wrote:
11 Jan 2021
Wikipedia is an excellent resource when looking at major articles where they are correctly sourced with extensive references - as long as you check the references.
Exactly what are you categorizing as a "major" article? A page on something/someone famous? Or just any page that happens to include lots of information? There is no parity whatsoever between importance of subject and amount of information on Wikipedia. Then there are the glorious changes of tense, the misspellings, the terrible grammar, the alternating between UK and US English, the bursts of unchecked subjective opinion that hang around on pages for years on end, and so on.
chaosroyale wrote:
11 Jan 2021
It does not deserve a reputation as unreliable. It's the minority interest stuff that is a shitshow.
This just isn't true.

Years ago I worked for a publisher for whom using Wikipedia as the sole reference for anything was a sackable offence for editors. Quite right too. If only the entire world had adopted this policy.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jan 2021

"modern readers who may not know how to read the original languages or understand the original contexts."

What's a modern reader?
By contrast, is a classical reader's mind better machined at decrypting an original language, and decoding original contexts without the help of middle-persons on Wikipedia?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ogniet.jpg

The problem is one never truly knows how 'noble' or biased a wiki editor is on a page like Reason's. Maybe a big Reason 5 user, and was forced to buy it after, because of the lack of cracks for Reason 6? Maybe a Ableton Live user now? That's why the edits seems so shocking to some people, imho. Doubts. Destruction of trust.

https://www.wikihow.com/Change-the-Titl ... ia-Article

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 1619
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Colombia

Post 11 Jan 2021

bxbrkrz wrote:
11 Jan 2021
"modern readers who may not know how to read the original languages or understand the original contexts."

What's a modern reader?
By contrast, is a classical reader's mind better machined at decrypting an original language, and decoding original contexts without the help of middle-persons on Wikipedia?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ogniet.jpg

The problem is one never truly knows how 'noble' or biased a wiki editor is on a page like Reason's. Maybe a big Reason 5 user, and was forced to buy it after, because of the lack of cracks for Reason 6? Maybe a Ableton Live user now? That's why the edits seems so shocking to some people, imho. Doubts. Destruction of trust.

https://www.wikihow.com/Change-the-Titl ... ia-Article
Think they just meant everyone alive today and not from the time of the historic event where depending on when it happened, the language that they used was different from today's. ? 🤷‍♂️ Or a different language than the ones one understands? That's how I read it.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jan 2021

PhillipOrdonez wrote:
11 Jan 2021
bxbrkrz wrote:
11 Jan 2021
"modern readers who may not know how to read the original languages or understand the original contexts."

What's a modern reader?
By contrast, is a classical reader's mind better machined at decrypting an original language, and decoding original contexts without the help of middle-persons on Wikipedia?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ogniet.jpg

The problem is one never truly knows how 'noble' or biased a wiki editor is on a page like Reason's. Maybe a big Reason 5 user, and was forced to buy it after, because of the lack of cracks for Reason 6? Maybe a Ableton Live user now? That's why the edits seems so shocking to some people, imho. Doubts. Destruction of trust.

https://www.wikihow.com/Change-the-Titl ... ia-Article
Think they just meant everyone alive today and not from the time of the historic event where depending on when it happened, the language that they used was different from today's. ? 🤷‍♂️ Or a different language than the ones one understands? That's how I read it.
The context is Reason's wiki page, a tool created way after the Tunguska event. Most people using Reason now were already alive before its birth, just guessing. In that context when you see the page, before and after, it is shocking. I don't see how it cannot be, old language/context, or not. Maybe soon we should get a better Wiki page?

Personally I never felt the need to check out Reason's wiki page. That's why we have our Reasontalk's guardians of the galaxy, telling us what's up.

Thanks OP :puf_smile: :thumbs_up:

chaosroyale
Posts: 549
Joined: 05 Sep 2017

Post 11 Jan 2021

I mean what wikipedia call "Featured articles" or otherwise highly ranked articles on their quality scale, sorry, I should have got the terminology right. For example, something like the article on "bacteria" will be well-sourced and accurate.

Also please note I never said anyone should use Wikipedia as a "sole reference", I said it was a resource and you should CHECK THE REFERENCES.

Of course anyone using wikipedia as a sole reference for academic or serious publications should be sacked.
Thousand Ways wrote:
11 Jan 2021
Exactly what are you categorizing as a "major" article? A page on something/someone famous? Or just any page that happens to include lots of information?

Years ago I worked for a publisher for whom using Wikipedia as the sole reference for anything was a sackable offence for editors. Quite right too. If only the entire world had adopted this policy.
Last edited by chaosroyale on 11 Jan 2021, edited 1 time in total.

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 1619
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Colombia

Post 11 Jan 2021

bxbrkrz wrote:
11 Jan 2021
PhillipOrdonez wrote:
11 Jan 2021


Think they just meant everyone alive today and not from the time of the historic event where depending on when it happened, the language that they used was different from today's. ? 🤷‍♂️ Or a different language than the ones one understands? That's how I read it.
The context is Reason's wiki page, a tool created way after the Tunguska event. Most people using Reason now were already alive before its birth, just guessing. In that context when you see the page, before and after, it is shocking. I don't see how it cannot be, old language/context, or not. Maybe soon we should get a better Wiki page?

Personally I never felt the need to check out Reason's wiki page. That's why we have our Reasontalk's guardians of the galaxy, telling us what's up.

Thanks OP :puf_smile: :thumbs_up:
I think they're talking about Wikipedia in general and how sources are taken into account there.

chaosroyale
Posts: 549
Joined: 05 Sep 2017

Post 11 Jan 2021

To simplify:

"yOU cAnT trUsT wikIPEdiA bECauSE anyThING caN be ChanGED"

No - that means you aren't checking the references properly.

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 11 Jan 2021

Context 2: can we trust the whole Wikipedia platform or not? I don't care about that.

Context 1: Reason's Wikipedia Page Has Been Completely Gutted. The OP made me aware of that specific topic with a shocking short video :thumbs_up:

Thousand Ways
Posts: 177
Joined: 18 Jun 2015

Post 12 Jan 2021

bxbrkrz wrote:
11 Jan 2021
Context 2: can we trust the whole Wikipedia platform or not? I don't care about that.

Context 1: Reason's Wikipedia Page Has Been Completely Gutted. The OP made me aware of that specific topic with a shocking short video :thumbs_up:
Not sure why you're listing "2" before "1", but putting that aside, if you don't care about whether Wikipedia is a trustworthy platform, then why are you shocked, or bothered at all, by whether its Reason page has been gutted?

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jan 2021

Thousand Ways wrote:
12 Jan 2021
bxbrkrz wrote:
11 Jan 2021
Context 2: can we trust the whole Wikipedia platform or not? I don't care about that.

Context 1: Reason's Wikipedia Page Has Been Completely Gutted. The OP made me aware of that specific topic with a shocking short video :thumbs_up:
Not sure why you're listing "2" before "1", but putting that aside, if you don't care about whether Wikipedia is a trustworthy platform, then why are you shocked, or bothered at all, by whether its Reason page has been gutted?
Order of importance to me.
2: I don't care about Wikipedia's gatekeeping, the drama behind the scene, etc. It is a sad situation, I think most people would agree. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it's a great tool. I hope Wikipedia will be as glorious as possible one day. If not, it will organically be replaced by something better. Maybe based on a variation of blockchain tech? Only Doctor Who knows.

1: The video produced by the admin & OP was shockingly well done. "Gutted" is a word part of the title of this thread. I wasn't "shocked" by Wiki's normal behavior. The person who created the thread was shocked and bothered by the 'gutting'. My reaction is to the thread, not to the whole Wikipedia universe.

Thank you again OP for the news in our little Reason Galaxy :puf_smile:

User avatar
rgdaniel
Posts: 433
Joined: 07 Sep 2017
Location: Canada

Post 12 Jan 2021

Am I hearing that people think it's Wikipedia who has gutted the page? I think it's probably just Reason Studios re-aligning from the Propellerhead era. Not sure why that involved removing so much history, though. I often found that quite interesting, to look up which version introduced, say, Thor, and what year that was. Very useful. RS should maintain their own history page with that level of detail, if they're going to yank it from Wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia, along with Google, are essential services.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 7712
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 12 Jan 2021

rgdaniel wrote:
12 Jan 2021
RS should maintain their own history page
Like this page?

https://www.reasonstudios.com/reason/upgrade

That's from an upgrade angle though. So it starts by listing what is in Reason 2 and apparently they hadn't updated it to list what is in Reason 11.

There's also still this wikipedia page about the company:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Studios

User avatar
rgdaniel
Posts: 433
Joined: 07 Sep 2017
Location: Canada

Post 13 Jan 2021

joeyluck wrote:
12 Jan 2021
rgdaniel wrote:
12 Jan 2021
RS should maintain their own history page
Like this page?

https://www.reasonstudios.com/reason/upgrade
Nice! Yeah, exactly like that page. :puf_smile:

Mint
Posts: 46
Joined: 17 Nov 2019

Post 13 Jan 2021

joeyluck wrote:
12 Jan 2021
rgdaniel wrote:
12 Jan 2021
RS should maintain their own history page
Like this page?

https://www.reasonstudios.com/reason/upgrade

That's from an upgrade angle though. So it starts by listing what is in Reason 2 and apparently they hadn't updated it to list what is in Reason 11.
Great find Joey! :thumbs_up:

User avatar
bxbrkrz
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 13 Jan 2021

Hey admin, this link could be on Reasontalk all the time for everyone to see.

fullforce
Posts: 326
Joined: 18 Aug 2018

Post 13 Jan 2021

Image
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: dpandri, RlKLwI1x and 5 guests