Indiepedia is like Wikipedia, only focussing on indie bands, and run by people who know that "indie music" is not the same as "whatever NME and Xfm are pimping now". Of course, it could be argued that it would be better just to post these articles to Wikipedia.

Posted by: Bowie | | Fri May 5 00:46:46 2006

I agree, many of the articles indiemedia.org seems to want should be in Wikipedia.

But Wikipedia has become very picky lately and has begun rejecting new band articles. I recently tried to add Australian band Pre_Shrunk. They're been signed, have released three albums and four EPs and have had multiple ARIA nominations and have toured constantly for years. And yet they were rejected as an "insignificant" band.

So even though I think anything and everything should be in Wikipedia, until they get overthemselves a bit and remember why they became as popular as they are (by allowing anyone to create an article on anything), indiemedia looks like it'll fill that hole.

Posted by: PoofBird | www.indiepedia.org | Tue May 9 10:16:32 2006

Indiepedia exists because Wikipedia does not deem many bands 'notable' enough.

There is currently no place on Wikipedia for many upcoming bands, local scenes, or lost and almost forgotten bands from years past.

We want to collect that information and make it readily available. If that could be done on Wikipedia, that would be great. Untill that time: Indiepedia.

Want to say something? Do so here.

Note to spammers: This comment system applies the rel=nofollow attribute to the poster's URL and all links. Posting links to this page will not improve their search engine rankings.

Display name:
URL:(optional)
To prove that you are not a bot, please enter the text in the image on the right in the field below it.

Your Comment:

Remember my details.

Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.

Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.