The BBM Wikipedia article

[Ellemeno]

I hadn't looked at the Wikipedia article about BBM (the movie) in months.  It is quite extensive, with links to a long list of articles about it.  Surprisingly, there is almost no analysis of the content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokeback_Mountain

I spot three small errors (well, not small to us, but to a non-brokie). 

~+~+~
"Ennis meets and dates an attractive waitress named Cassidy Cartwright (Linda Cardellini) at a diner he frequents."
~+~+~
"Now 19 years old, she's getting ready to marry, and asks for her father's consent in coming and giving her away at the wedding. Ennis seems initially reluctant, citing that he might have to work, but decides against it, agrees to go, and pours two glasses of whiskey for him and his daughter with which to celebrate. "
~+~+~

BetterMost is included in a list of external links. It occurred to me that maybe someone could start a Wikipedia article about BetterMost.

[welliwont]

eh, stupid Wikipedia.  Once upon a time there were some analysis article(s) attached to the enty, but for whatever reason, it/they were taken down.  Someone who was knowledgeable in the workings of Wikipedia predicted that that would happen, and he/she was right!!       I forget the exact reason, but something to do with it being challenged, or sumthin??  So even if someone pours their heart out into a great big wonderful analysis, it sure would be nice if it was retained.  Stupid Wikipedia.   

[Phillip Dampier]

eh, stupid Wikipedia.  Once upon a time there were some analysis article(s) attached to the enty, but for whatever reason, it/they were taken down.  Someone who was knowledgeable in the workings of Wikipedia predicted that that would happen, and he/she was right!!       I forget the exact reason, but something to do with it being challenged, or sumthin??  So even if someone pours their heart out into a great big wonderful analysis, it sure would be nice if it was retained.  Stupid Wikipedia.   

That was probably me.  Wikipedia is dominated by a fiefdom of self-important "editors" who have a rigid vision of what articles should and should not be.  People can get away with plenty when an item is low profile, but when it is a "hot topic," the editors park on articles and edit them accordingly.  We've had a battle to stay listed in Wikipedia since the site started.  We snuck back in to the listing after the film got out of the public eye, and seem to have stayed there ever since.  But when it becomes an issue again, the editors return and start hacking up the place.

I don't think a Wikipedia entry about BetterMost would ever stand the test of time, mostly because they don't want their site to be used as a promotional index for other websites.  I am okay with that.  The most I hope from the Wikipedia entry is a simple link to us, mostly because it helps people find us and also because it helps our rankings in Google whenever a site links to us.  The more that do so, the higher we rank in search results, which is why I like to ask users to spread the word about us by posting links back to us here.

[newyearsday]

You used to be able to edit things in Wikipedia yourself right? I also remember that Chris Slayers said he wrote an article about BBM at Wikipedia, way back in maybe March or something. Maybe it got deleted.

I can't believe the thing about Cassie as "Cassidy." From your quote, the article also seems to make no explanation of WHY Ennis decides to go to Alma Jr's wedding after all, which is of course a big deal. Makes it seem boring in contrast.

too bad for the uninformed!

[Front-Ranger]

That was probably me.  Wikipedia is dominated by a fiefdom of self-important "editors" who have a rigid vision of what articles should and should not be.  People can get away with plenty when an item is low profile, but when it is a "hot topic," the editors park on articles and edit them accordingly.  We've had a battle to stay listed in Wikipedia since the site started.  We snuck back in to the listing after the film got out of the public eye, and seem to have stayed there ever since.  But when it becomes an issue again, the editors return and start hacking up the place.

I don't think a Wikipedia entry about BetterMost would ever stand the test of time, mostly because they don't want their site to be used as a promotional index for other websites.  I am okay with that.  The most I hope from the Wikipedia entry is a simple link to us, mostly because it helps people find us and also because it helps our rankings in Google whenever a site links to us.  The more that do so, the higher we rank in search results, which is why I like to ask users to spread the word about us by posting links back to us here.

I have a very interesting article from the New Yorker that tells about how Wikipedia works and it is very complicated sociopathically.

[Kd5000]

The founders of Wikipedia or starting another website. I think it will more regulated as there have been charges of copyright infringment and inaccurate information.   I didn't realize the producers took their time looking  at 50 of the most romantic movie posters before deciding on what they wanted BBM's movie poster to look like.  I wonder what the 50 were?

Ever checked the entry for CRASH. It's such a short, short, article. 

Many on-line reference sources have inaccurate information. I remember the World Book Encyclopedia I had as a kid. Every year we'd get a "World Book" from the company updating information and what the big news stories were of the past year, i.e. The Iranian Revolution etc. It would be as thick as the regular S. We started throwing away the annual world books. My parents still have the original set.

[Front-Ranger]

Many on-line reference sources have inaccurate information.

That is certainly the truth, Kd. I get a little testy when someone tells me that there is no such word because they can't find it on dictionary.com or that the definition of a word is such-and-such as explained on wikipedia!! Similar to the way people complain about not being able to find the story Brokeback Mountain online or think of themselves as authors because they did their research, googling the word cowboy.