With the re-emergence of CMJ and the possible resulting mutiny and counter-mutiny, I've been mulling over possible ways to give Obner it's own identity/non-bb content and give it legs to stand on.

I thought about how quickly, at least at first, the Charts grew when it was introduced, and about how conscientious people generally were about entering accurate information, etc. Then I thought about allmusic, and how it's a great service, but it's not free and even the paid version doesn't offer the kind of recommendations that could make it more than just a reference. Then I thought about wikipedia.com, and how successful it's been just letting people add information on the stuff that they care about.

Could a wikipedia-style model work for a free allmusic substitute? A repository of information and cross-references on every artist imaginable, with an Amazon-style recommendation engine, that was unbeholden to corporate interests because any little band could add themselves? Does anything like this exist?

not that i know of, but it's a damn good idea.

I think it's a pretty cool idea.

I'm all for an AMG alternative, cause that overhaul sucks ass.

I think it would be awesome. You could probably get a lot of ad $$$, too which would make it profitable for you and free for everyone else. Question: would people be able to add worthless comments like, "I never got why people loved this album" or "this band sucks" to the "musicpedia"?

Also, AllMusic isn't free to use? What do you mean? What is the paid version?

You can't get album credits or any of that kind of information free on AMG.

In my initial conception, anyone would be able to write a review (a la amazon.com), but only the one with the highest "was this review helpful" or maybe "is this writer respectable" rating, or both, would be displayed as the main review unless you clicked "view all reviews" or something. But there would be objective album information in addition to reviews.

Great idea. I've been hoping people would be interested in creating some sort of non-bb content for Obner (like something for the home page), but all I could really think of was just another review site. I think a more Wikipedia-type thing like you're suggesting would be really cool.

We should probably come up with a different site name, though.

oh andy i guess i didn't really answer your question - yeah, people COULD do that, and they could also do it on wikipedia, but they've managed to develop a respectful culture where it doesn't happen much.

drinky: you read my mind on the domain. feel free to throw out ideas. we might be able to glom onto the wikimedia project with a name like musicpedia or the like.

I think it would be cool if each entry page had a Friendster/Myspace-type column where members could post comments.

I like this idea.

"I don't know what the fuck you just said little man...But you special....You reached out, and touched a brothers heart...." - Tracy Morgan "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back"

Maybe a pseudo-wiki where only proven members can edit the entries?

It would be cool if we had a heirarchy system like everything2.com has...

why do we need to go back to CMJ? I Like obner.

I fear that especially early on this would cause content to appear too slowly.

I'm pretty vague on the details, so spare me if I'm way off base.

But doesn't wikipedia have a team of moderators that can keep shit in order should things get a little out of hand?

Maybe entries could only be edited by the original entrant, just like posts? But any member could put up an original entry.

I agree. I think your idea is really good. I like the plan of having a review/information with the highst rating / most votes as the featured source and additional reviews/comments available as well. Maybe later on, there can be a heirarchy but building a database for this information is a HUGE undertaking so it will take as many people as possible to get it started.

Do it.

Well, we already have a dedicated pool of people willing to post. All the cmj/obner regulars would have access to post. I was worried more about new people just showing up and screwing everything over.

But then if the original entrant is a suckass writer, the entry will never get better. The reason the info on Wikipedia is so good is that eventually someone smart eventually comes along and polishes or rewrites the crappy entries.

7 BILLION REVIEWS OF THE FUCKING WRENS ALBUM

seriously, though, this is a good idea, even if it's generally just to whore ourselves out to would-be posters. we all like to wax on (and off) and on about music here, so why the hell not?

Then we'd get 83 different entries for OK Computer, etc...

How about something like:

At the top of an album page:
a main obner review, which should try to avoid stating indiviual opinion and focus on fact, bio, etc. This would be editable by any proven member(people who will likely not fuck it up)

below that, a Charts-style poll, where anyone registered at the site can post their rating

below that, a BB thread-style comment area, where any visitor can post their own opinion on why an album is great, sucks, etc. Make this area threaded like slashdot, so we can respond to each other's opinion. Also, let proven members grade these opinions, so the most lucid/well thought-out and interesting entries migrate to the top.

I think that totally open access and naive faith in human nature is actually what has caused wikipedia to succeed though, and there's no way this will be remotely useful anytime soon if it's just obner regulars posting info.

I think what drinky meant was that if an entry didn't exist, anyone could add it. I'd like to keep control as democratic and decentralized as possible, which is why i like the idea of the main review being the highest-rated. Then there would be amazon-style reviews by anybody, and the overall rating would be based on the sum of all user ratings.

As an extension of this site, we can create a dating service. Each band could have a list of fans who are seeking others that like that band much like http://www.racefansconnect.com/members/

But they have millions of users, and we only have hundreds. One rogue asshat could cause much more chaos here.

Plus, music critique is more divisive than most wiki entries.

But they didn't start with millions of users. I agree about music being more divisive, but with minimal moderation and a decent amount of conscientious users, I think good content will win out.