« Jam Master Jay's Scratch Music Nabs $3.3M Funding | Main | Consumers Value Photos Much More Than Music [Study] »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Being included in Wikipedia is a must for any musical act"

Hate to always disagree with you Clyde, but if that were true then what seperates Wikipedia from MySpace.

Only acts that have really done something with themselves should have an entry in Wikipedia, not every garage band that is playing at the local bar and will break up in 6 months before doing anything noteable.

I have friends who always ask me about how they can get into Wikipedia. I tell them to shut up and focus on their career and fans and getting exposure, and if they do that and make something of themselves, then they'll get there organically.

Clyde Smith

You're right though I don't get the MySpace reference.

But since being listed in Wikipedia requires more than what every band does I guess I'm also saying that it's a must to become notable enough to be listed in Wikipedia.

Obviously the kind of band you're describing wouldn't pass the notability test which I discuss for quite a bit of the post so I guess I could have fleshed out that one sentence to belabor the obvious.

But, no, you can't assume you'll show up anywhere organically. That implies meritocracy and there's no such thing outside of people's fantasies.


"Being included in Wikipedia is a must for any musical act" Why?

I'd rather not be on Wikipedia because then my website would be fighting that Wiki page in the search engine rankings.

Clyde Smith

The why precedes the statement you're interrogating.

You don't need to view your Wikipedia entry as a competitor if you also are actively involved with that entry and make sure it links out to your official site and that the information is accurate. It should be viewed as a useful resource.

Honestly, the only time I see Wikipedia entries outranking official sites is when the owners haven't done a solid job with seo and haven't spread the news about their site. For example, when they've prioritized their social network entries at the expense of their site.

If you properly build and promote your own site on the way to becoming notable, you're unlikely to have that problem from Wikipedia.

And if you're properly working with your Wikipedia entry, it shouldn't be a problem anyway.


The backlink from wikipedia to your website will improve your search rank...

Clyde Smith

Actually those are "nofollow" links so they shouldn't really help with search ranking.

However, I should point out that I've found people's official pages through Wikipedia when they weren't coming up in initial results on search engines or, for various reasons, didn't clearly appear to be an official site.

Clyde Smith

Apologies for obsessing over this but it took me awhile to think through the real problem with your example:

"garage band that is playing at the local bar and will break up in 6 months before doing anything noteable."

I don't write any posts for bands like that. My advice is not for such bands. So that's kind of a ridiculous example and if I'd realized that at first I would have cut to the chase.


You're right.

Clyde Smith

Once in a while I am right!

But I had to double check the code. nofollow tags are a growing piece of the puzzle.


I'm not editing someone else's website about me and doing their job for them, lol.

Wikipedia = content spam.


Wikipedia is a tricky one. Although I do understand that they want to have relevant information and dependable resources to back that relevant information up, what is their criteria to do so? How do they weigh the merits? Is it impossible to get a page if your not signed to a label? This seems to be yet another instance where indie music gets the shaft because it doesn't have the funds or backing to make a name for itself even if it is good. Why would a site that is created to share information frown upon some, but not others?

Free album download at http://www.facebook.com/chancius

Sam Bhattacharya

I know several independent bands and artists with their own Wikipedia page. The notability factor applies to them of course.

Fred Bauder

It is not just a matter of sales or hits, although that will help. It is a matter of being interesting enough that music critics have written about you, several music critics, like in the The Rolling Stone.


Thanks for understanding my point Clyde. The "Myspace" reference was having every band under the sun having a wiki page just for the sake of having one.

If you're noteable you should most definitely have one, it adds a ton of credibility to you as an artist. But like I said, only if you've done something worth having a page about.

Clyde Smith

And harmony is achieved!

The comments to this entry are closed.


Musician & Music Industry Resources