Who are the fans that wrote Britney's informations on Wikipedia?

[Fita]

I was just wondering... If anyone can go to Wikipedia and write what they want, then who writes Britney's stuff there? Is it Exhale members? Or from the old Universe of Britney Spears (is that what it was called?). And is it reliable?

Share you thoughts.

[Agyness]

It’s really just a few people who have the time (often the same ones, as shown in the image), coming from all over the world, not necessarily exhalers, who in any case, prefer talking about her teeth or stomach on Instagram rather than contributing to a biographical page with relevant information for the general public. 

 

[PokemonSpears]

Anyone can write on Wikipedia, you don't even need an account to edit an article.

However, there are editors that oversee changes. Well, I don't know how many category of users there are, but for practical purposes just like everyone can add/edit stuff, also everyone can come and delete your changes, or add more changes over what you did.

On Wikipedia there's all kinds of people. Some focus on particular topics, like "Music" in general, and they oversee anything related to that, but it's not a rule set in stone, you can go and edit any article from any topic. Particularly when it comes to music, the Wikipedia puritans are against any language that seems biased or that comes "from the perspective of a fan". In fact, is safe to say that the last kind of person they want editing articles is actual fans of the artist/topic. They'll always ask you for verifiable sources, and will always question the "relevance" or notability of any new article.

For example, you would assume that if every album or single by Britney (or any other artist) already has a Wikipedia page, then by consequence, any future single or album she releases deserves its own article automatically, but this is wrong. Their ideology is that it doesn't matter if all previous works are notable enough to have an article, any new release needs to have enough sources to justify its "encyclopedic relevance".

The thing is, again, nothing is set in stone. There's rules and guidelines, but in the end it's usually up to a consensus whether an article stays or not. For instance, an album that has charted on any official site is candidate to have an article, however, charting on itself isn't enough. There needs to be several publications that write about it, like Billboard, Forbes, BCC, etc. Sources also have their own criteria: fan sites, gossip blogs, anything they consider irrelevant can't be used.

 

Someone created an article for Britney's Oops Remixes and B Sides vinyl. But someone contested its relevance, there was a voting, and literally a handful of people voted, decided against it, and that was it. Any further attempt of bringing it back has failed, because there's only like two articles by official publications that talk about it, despite having charted on several official charts, and the people that voted had already considered this, so unless there's a bunch of new official sources that suddenly talk about it in the future, it'll never come back.

 

Now, in order for someone to question your new articles, they need to be noticed first. Ironically, there are many articles on Wikipedia that are so irrelevant, that nobody even knows they're there, so they're never put up for debate. But when it comes to Britney Spears, there seems to be certain users that are fixated and are always checking anything related to her to question its validity. And I'm not even joking, there's at least one user that was a Christina Aguilera fan (given the username and pages they edited) that was the one preventing the changing of the picture on Britney Spears' main article, you know, that old 2013 picture.

First, the excuse was that any image that is used needs to have the right permissions/licensing. And when someone finally found a picture, they were like "there's no need to change it". So you can keep going and change it, but someone will change it back. A never ending battle, which is a matter of who gets tired first.

But in general, main articles about artists as important as Britney, are usually protected and they do need you to be logged in, but even if you go and add something that isn't right, or true, or verified, someone will quickly revert it.

If you go and edit a Z-list artist's page, chances are it may take years before anybody notices.

Edited November 7 by PokemonSpears

[PokemonSpears]

For example this article about a Beyoncé EP or whatever

True Star (perfume) - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

it has a message at the top since June 2022 asking for its notability to be proven. Two and a half years later and it seems like nobody cares and it'll stay like that for many more years.

If this was a Britney topic, a voting against it would've already taken place in a matter of months to have it deleted.

[thesimplelife]

29 minutes ago, PokemonSpears said:

Anyone can write on Wikipedia, you don't even need an account to edit an article.

However, there are editors that oversee changes. Well, I don't know how many category of users there are, but for practical purposes just like everyone can add/edit stuff, also everyone can come and delete your changes, or add more changes over what you did.

On Wikipedia there's all kinds of people. Some focus on particular topics, like "Music" in general, and they oversee anything related to that, but it's not a rule set in stone, you can go and edit any article from any topic. Particularly when it comes to music, the Wikipedia puritans are against any language that seems biased or that comes "from the perspective of a fan". In fact, is safe to say that the last kind of person they want editing articles is actual fans of the artist/topic. They'll always ask you for verifiable sources, and will always question the "relevance" or notability of any new article.

For example, you would assume that if every album or single by Britney (or any other artist) already has a Wikipedia page, then by consequence, any future single or album she releases deserves its own article automatically, but this is wrong. Their ideology is that it doesn't matter if all previous works are notable enough to have an article, any new release needs to have enough sources to justify its "encyclopedic relevance".

The thing is, again, nothing is set in stone. There's rules and guidelines, but in the end it's usually up to a consensus whether an article stays or not. For instance, an album that has charted on any official site is candidate to have an article, however, charting on itself isn't enough. There needs to be several publications that write about it, like Billboard, Forbes, BCC, etc. Sources also have their own criteria: fan sites, gossip blogs, anything they consider irrelevant can't be used.

 

Someone created an article for Britney's Oops Remixes and B Sides vinyl. But someone contested its relevance, there was a voting, and literally a handful of people voted, decided against it, and that was it. Any further attempt of bringing it back has failed, because there's only like two articles by official publications that talk about it, despite having charted on several official charts, and the people that voted had already considered this, so unless there's a bunch of new official sources that suddenly talk about it in the future, it'll never come back.

 

Now, in order for someone to question your new articles, they need to be noticed first. Ironically, there are many articles on Wikipedia that are so irrelevant, that nobody even knows they're there, so they're never put up for debate. But when it comes to Britney Spears, there seems to be certain users that are fixated and are always checking anything related to her to question its validity. And I'm not even joking, there's at least one user that was a Christina Aguilera fan (given the username and pages they edited) that was the one preventing the changing of the picture on Britney Spears' main article, you know, that old 2013 picture.

First, the excuse was that any image that is used needs to have the right permissions/licensing. And when someone finally found a picture, they were like "there's no need to change it". So you can keep going and change it, but someone will change it back. A never ending battle, which is a matter of who gets tired first.

But in general, main articles about artists as important as Britney, are usually protected and they do need you to be logged in, but even if you go and add something that isn't right, or true, or verified, someone will quickly revert it.

If you go and edit a Z-list artist's page, chances are it may take years before anybody notices.

Thank you for explaining. I had no idea it worked like this

The Xtina fan not allowing them to change the picture is insane

[Isla]

1 hour ago, PokemonSpears said:

Anyone can write on Wikipedia, you don't even need an account to edit an article.

However, there are editors that oversee changes. Well, I don't know how many category of users there are, but for practical purposes just like everyone can add/edit stuff, also everyone can come and delete your changes, or add more changes over what you did.

On Wikipedia there's all kinds of people. Some focus on particular topics, like "Music" in general, and they oversee anything related to that, but it's not a rule set in stone, you can go and edit any article from any topic. Particularly when it comes to music, the Wikipedia puritans are against any language that seems biased or that comes "from the perspective of a fan". In fact, is safe to say that the last kind of person they want editing articles is actual fans of the artist/topic. They'll always ask you for verifiable sources, and will always question the "relevance" or notability of any new article.

For example, you would assume that if every album or single by Britney (or any other artist) already has a Wikipedia page, then by consequence, any future single or album she releases deserves its own article automatically, but this is wrong. Their ideology is that it doesn't matter if all previous works are notable enough to have an article, any new release needs to have enough sources to justify its "encyclopedic relevance".

The thing is, again, nothing is set in stone. There's rules and guidelines, but in the end it's usually up to a consensus whether an article stays or not. For instance, an album that has charted on any official site is candidate to have an article, however, charting on itself isn't enough. There needs to be several publications that write about it, like Billboard, Forbes, BCC, etc. Sources also have their own criteria: fan sites, gossip blogs, anything they consider irrelevant can't be used.

 

Someone created an article for Britney's Oops Remixes and B Sides vinyl. But someone contested its relevance, there was a voting, and literally a handful of people voted, decided against it, and that was it. Any further attempt of bringing it back has failed, because there's only like two articles by official publications that talk about it, despite having charted on several official charts, and the people that voted had already considered this, so unless there's a bunch of new official sources that suddenly talk about it in the future, it'll never come back.

 

Now, in order for someone to question your new articles, they need to be noticed first. Ironically, there are many articles on Wikipedia that are so irrelevant, that nobody even knows they're there, so they're never put up for debate. But when it comes to Britney Spears, there seems to be certain users that are fixated and are always checking anything related to her to question its validity. And I'm not even joking, there's at least one user that was a Christina Aguilera fan (given the username and pages they edited) that was the one preventing the changing of the picture on Britney Spears' main article, you know, that old 2013 picture.

First, the excuse was that any image that is used needs to have the right permissions/licensing. And when someone finally found a picture, they were like "there's no need to change it". So you can keep going and change it, but someone will change it back. A never ending battle, which is a matter of who gets tired first.

But in general, main articles about artists as important as Britney, are usually protected and they do need you to be logged in, but even if you go and add something that isn't right, or true, or verified, someone will quickly revert it.

If you go and edit a Z-list artist's page, chances are it may take years before anybody notices.

An Xtina fan didn’t want her picture changed?  You can’t be serious. It bothers me how that’s been her wiki picture for ages especially when that pic is pretty old now. 

[PokemonSpears]

2 hours ago, thesimplelife said:

Thank you for explaining. I had no idea it worked like this

The Xtina fan not allowing them to change the picture is insane

there's several people in there

then, for example the templates for albums and singles have a field where you can put an alternate cover if there's any. So I went ahead and added the ones that have one, but after someone noticed, they went and reverted all of my changes. They said like it has to be significantly different in order to justify showing both, but they still removed the likes of B in the Mix, or The Singles Collection, etc.

 

However I did manage to put back up the articles for Playlist and The Essential, but no one has noticed so far

Playlist: The Very Best of Britney Spears - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

 

The Essential Britney Spears - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

I also added the Crossroads soundtrack cover from 2023

Crossroads (soundtrack) - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

 

And I sneaked in the Kill the Lights promo cover but I had to add it as a random image in the article and not as part of the template

Kill the Lights (Britney Spears song) - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

And in the Spanish Wikipedia is a whole 'nother battle. I've had articles removed, and everything.

 

It's very frustrating because these people act as if Wikipedia was such a sacred place, and they're so selective about what can be in Wikipedia, but it seems like their general philosophy is to have as little as possible, as if that affected them in any way. Like literally, what is the harm in having an "irrelevant" article, as long as it's true, correct information?

To me it's worse for Wikipedia to have incomplete, outdated info. Or to look for something only to find out that there's no article for it. Whether they want it or not, Wikipedia has become the main source of reference itself, that even Google pulls the info mostly from it. So if an artist, an album, a series, whatever doesn't exist in Wikipedia is almost as if it didn't exist at all.

[AquaSpears]

I mean wikipedia is open to everyone and anyone so...

but then when it's cultural gay musical business pop royalty icon Britney Spears it's gunna be right 

y'all here somewhere? 

 

[AquaSpears]

11 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

It's very frustrating because these people act as if Wikipedia was such a sacred place, and they're so selective about what can be in Wikipedia, but it seems like their general philosophy is to have as little as possible, as if that affected them in any way. Like literally, what is the harm in having an "irrelevant" article, as long as it's true, correct information?

To me it's worse for Wikipedia to have incomplete, outdated info. Or to look for something only to find out that there's no article for it. Whether they want it or not, Wikipedia has become the main source of reference itself, that even Google pulls the info mostly from it. So if an artist, an album, a series, whatever doesn't exist in Wikipedia is almost as if it didn't exist at all.

preach

and where's the kill the lights cover image??

Edited November 7 by PolySpears

[PokemonSpears]

12 hours ago, PolySpears said:

preach

and where's the kill the lights cover image??

on the Kill the Lights article, I put it next to the tracklist

It's actually a promo CD for Circus Fantasy, and it contains a remix of Circus and Kill the Lights. But it's ironic that they include that tracklist but not the cover where it come from

[mfanbs]

i tried changing the main photo, but never succeeded they always changed it back