Dubstepforum.com

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:22 pm**

whole thing should be deleted and replaced with gravy's 'histry of dubstep' thing.

only kidding, large up barefiles. i show my support with the t-shirt

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:31 pm**

epithet wrote: My personal gripe is, the article seems woefully incomplete without mention of BREAKSTEP given it's shared roots. Surely it is more stylistically relevent than techno and the referenced twaddle at the bottom of the dubstep page?

Seems like someone is trying to rewrite history and taking a few liberties with the truth. I mean c'mon, no hotflush, no toasty and no scuba ? That's tantamount to heresy.

there are only three of us regularly maintaining the article, and it's hard to find references for everything. i'm not denying the article needs improvement still, but at the same time there's a thin line between a good article and an overlong article that reads like a list of artists.

intention is to get it to featured article status, which means that for a day, dubstep would be on the front page of wiki which is the seventh most visited site in the world. and 98% of people who would read it in that case would not be familiar with the scene at all.

development has slacked off a bit lately what with people having new jobs and the like (unemployment was good for that at least

)

and as for breakstep, check the navbar at the bottom of the article!

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:39 pm**

just find a published article to support your entry to the page. it's not that hard to understand people.

if people are thinking there's some conspiracy, then they don't understand what wiki is all about.

forget music for a moment. just imagine the amount of bickering and backstabbing that must go on. these pages are locked down from further editing because the editors at wikipedia have had enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:46 pm**

you wouldn't believe the fucking CONSTANT edit war over the term 'IDM' on the aphex twin article, for example.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:54 pm**

seckle wrote:just find a published article to support your entry to the page. it's not that hard to understand people.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:06 pm**

kaini wrote:
there's a thin line between a good article and an overlong article that reads like a list of artists and as for breakstep, check the navbar at the bottom of the article!

true, but certain artists get quite few mentions. So as a suggestion, perhaps mention them less and put in other artists/labels that made as much of a significant contribution.

And as for breakstep, likewise, surely it deserves more than just a one name link in the nav bar right at the end ?

You have basically written out a VERY LARGE part of the origins of dubstep and were the article to get featured status, people would not get a historically correct asessment of what it was and is.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:10 pm**

Tomity wrote:If dubstepforum is mentioned then barefiles certainly should be.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:32 pm**

epithet wrote:
kaini wrote:
there's a thin line between a good article and an overlong article that reads like a list of artists and as for breakstep, check the navbar at the bottom of the article!
true, but certain artists get quite few mentions. So as a suggestion, perhaps mention them less and put in other artists/labels that made as much of a significant contribution.

And as for breakstep, likewise, surely it deserves more than just a one name link in the nav bar right at the end ?

You have basically written out a VERY LARGE part of the origins of dubstep and were the article to get featured status, people would not get a historically correct asessment of what it was and is.

it's an article about dubstep, not breakstep.

and YET again, find some references and edit the article yourself. anyone can edit wikipedia. did i mention it has to be referenced?

i swear, i (and others) started improving the article from a stub because i love this music, and all i seem to get is grief off some people. props to blackdown for developing it beyond a redirect to grime in the first place, btw.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:44 pm**

someone i know put my name on there and it was removed with the quickness

i found it amusing, but then again my contributions to the dubstep movement are about a year old and certainly are nowhere near deapoh/barefiles.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:19 pm**

kaini wrote:
epithet wrote:
kaini wrote:
there's a thin line between a good article and an overlong article that reads like a list of artists and as for breakstep, check the navbar at the bottom of the article!
true, but certain artists get quite few mentions. So as a suggestion, perhaps mention them less and put in other artists/labels that made as much of a significant contribution.

And as for breakstep, likewise, surely it deserves more than just a one name link in the nav bar right at the end ?

You have basically written out a VERY LARGE part of the origins of dubstep and were the article to get featured status, people would not get a historically correct asessment of what it was and is.
it's an article about dubstep, not breakstep...

then why the silly techno references and namechecks for people whose singular contribution is a remix and the odd tune in their set ?

The whole wiki breakstep thing was originally written by blackdown and until recently part of the dubstep definition so why carve it off and pretend it has no relevence ?

Did you do that ? Exactly how long you been into dubstep for if you don't mind my asking ?

No offense, but the whole thing seems like an ammuntiuon hype piece. Do you work for them ?

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:22 pm**

Are you a confrontational prick? (that's a rhetorical question)

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:24 pm**

Tomity wrote:If dubstepforum is mentioned then barefiles certainly should be.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:39 pm**

jim wrote:Are you a confrontational prick? (that's a rhetorical question)

easy tiger

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:41 pm**

big up deapoh.

no doubt your influence has been massive

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:44 pm**

epithet wrote:
jim wrote:Are you a confrontational prick? (that's a rhetorical question)
easy tiger

epithet wrote:Did you do that ? Exactly how long you been into dubstep for if you don't mind my asking ?

No offense, but the whole thing seems like an ammuntiuon hype piece. Do you work for them ?

Really nice way to talk to someone who has only wasted their own time trying to make an informative page just because he hasn't edited it exactly to your liking.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:55 pm**

jim wrote: Really nice way to talk to someone who has only wasted their own time trying to make an informative page just because he hasn't edited it exactly to your liking.

Thanks man, but it's more like, just because he edited it into a distorted approximation of the facts in favour of his own likings.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 10:59 pm**

Oh I wasn't aware what you thought was objective truth.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:02 pm**

wiki reminds me of the Ministry of Truth and Deapoh, you are Winston.

Posted: **Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:07 pm**

jim wrote:Oh I wasn't aware what you thought was objective truth.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:39 am**

epithet wrote:Dubstep is a genre of electronic dance music which has its roots in London's early 2000s UK garage scene. The genre's name was coined by Ammunition Promotions. Musically, dubstep is distinguished by its dark mood, sparse rhythms, and emphasis on bass. Dubstep started to spread beyond small local scenes in late 2005 and early 2006, with many blogs and forums devoted to the genre appearing on the internet, most significant of these was arguably >gutterbreaks link<, >dubplate.net link<,>dubstepforum.com<and>barefiles link<

After a bit more searching I found a reference that mentions barefiles and gutterbreakz enough to verify this much.

The whole wiki breakstep thing was originally written by blackdown and until recently part of the dubstep definition so why carve it off and pretend it has no relevence ?

Wikipedia has a bit of a problem that when anyone - even someone like Martin Clark, who is a writer of "reliable sources" - comes along and writes a Wikipedia article off the top of their head, it violates wikipedia policy as "original research" and in most cases "unverifiable". This is necessary because as an encyclopedia, wikipedia has to rely on secondary sources for information, or it would get out of hand, become myspace, etc.. but in some cases it's annoying. If blackdown were to write the same content on Pitchfork, anyone would be able to paraphrase it in a Wikipedia article citing it as a source and that would be okay. Factual information in reliable sources on dubstep probably makes up about 10% of all the true factual information out there. Because of this, sites like this will always be a more fruitful source of information on some topics, and tbh, probably regarded by scholars as equally (un)reliable as wikipedia anyway. This is why the link to dubstepforum in external links should definitely be there.

Dubstepforum.com

Wiki: Dubstep