 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Yes, I do have a close connection with this subject! Just wanted to kick start the entry before someone else did, to avoid the kind of mistaken description that I have seen before. For example, Stomp is stuck with the entry "Stomp (dance troupe)". Stomp is not and has never been a dance troupe. It's a piece of music theatre that by its very nature involves choreography and movement, but its roots lie in drumming, not dancing. Further, it is a show, not a troupe, as there are several productions around the world, each with their own autonomous group of performers. Yet search for Stomp on Wikipedia and it is impossible to avoid the term "dance troupe". How does this represent objectivity when it is plainly misleading? If I edit that, will I not be accused of bias, even though I am spelling out simple facts?
It would be more accurate to have the heading Stomp (West End Show) or Stomp (Off Broadway Show)...
Its not the only inaccuracy I see in entries that I have a direct connection with and direct knowledge of, and it does make me wary of wikipedia, to be honest. Similarly the IMDB, another great web institution, can have flaws, thanks to erroneous postings.
Further, external sources can also be flawed: again with Stomp, a Dorling Kindersley encyclopaedia, completely rewrites the history of the show, and yet, if included as a reference here, it would be considered a reliable verification.
So I question the immediate assumption that closeness to a subject implies a bias regarding mistruth, in many cases, surely, it indicates a bias towards fact. The assumption that contributors might bend the truth for self promotion is a natural one, however, which is a shame!
I will endeavour to be purely factual in my contributions, simply to preserve unbiased truth of the matter and look forward to other contributors material.