Good job, whoever contributed to this! It's a great resource.

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

Dear Dandy,

While I agree that the Wikipedia web site is great, an even greater resource is Phil's http://www.bradburymedia.co.uk/. Phil's site is up to date, as it includes the newest releases; Match to Flame, Now and Forever, Somewhere a Band is Playing, and Futuria Fantasia. Also, his short story finder is priceless. Thanks, Phil, your hard work and effort are both much appreciated. I have now been posting for a year on this board, thanks to all for your comments and replies.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: greenray,

Controversial materials have been rejected from the wikipedia Bradbury site.

Wikipedia needs pretty constant policing. People can post anything on there. I didn't read every word, but this article looked thorough and well-done. It also included links to this site and Phil's.

dandelion, WRONGO!
People can't post anything on there. It's scrutinized by a whole league of people who are something on the order of wikipedia afficiandos. Almost always what you put on wikipedia must be backed-up by some fact that has already appeared online somewhere. Otherwise, it's investigated and pulled if not confirmed. I placed some things on the Bradbury page of wikipedia and it was pulled within a day of placing the item. I replaced it. It was pulled. We went around 3 or 4 times before a version was accepted because they edited the submission, and I would have had to supply evidence to the contrary to have my original version replace their version. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find time to dig out the evidence so their version remained. Since I have not looked at the page in the last 6 months, their version may has also been retracted as well. I'll have to look.

dandelion! I looked over the wikipedia site. Well, the item I had fought to place there last year is gone. No mention, their edited version or mine.

The problem with Wikipedia (and probably all wikis) is this: at any given moment, what you see may be false, incomplete or misleading. But on average, over time, it tends to be truthful and accurate. Of course, most people don't monitor a Wikipedia page over time - they just take one look.

So although the false content may be small or short-lived, it can have lasting (devastating?) consequences.

In the case of Bradbury, you can see from the revision history that there are many active readers/monitors, and this has helped keep it fairly accurate. Other, more niche topics aren't so well policed.

Overall, I think the Bradbury page is very nicely done, and is one of the best introductions to Mr B and his work.

Hey, Salamander, what was the nature of the info you wanted to post on Wikipedia?

Anyone besides me read "The Cult of the Amateur: How today's Internet is killing our culture" by Andrew Keen?