Christian music has been written to express either personal or a communal belief regarding Christian life and faith.
Christian music is truly unique in the world of music. Sonically, its characteristics encompass the entire spectrum of music, with only the faith-based nature of the genre connecting the disparate array of styles. Even the faith-based aspect proves difficult to pin down, with artists ranging from the rock bands U2 and Switchfoot, to singer-songwriter Derek Webb, to the rapper Lecrae refusing to be pigeon-holed by the "Christian" label, arguing that Christianity is a faith, not a genre. Regardless of these debates as to exactly who is and who is not included among its ranks, Christian music continues to thrive. And as the genre embodies all sonic variations of music as a whole, it allows for each and all tastes, whether classical or jazz, hip hop or heavy metal.
WikiProject Christian music began around 2008. Its stated goal is to "help assemble editors interested in Christian music" and "standardize and improve articles related to Christian music and its sub-genres, as well as to create missing articles." Some 3,460 articles are listed as falling under the WikiProject, though many more articles fall under its child projects and task forces and many others could potentially fall under the WikiProject banner but are uncategorized. WikiProject Christian music itself falls under several parent projects, specifically WikiProject Christianity and its parent, WikiProject Religion; WikiProject Music genres and its parent WikiProject Music; WikiProject Arts, and WikiProject Culture.
When I started editing Wikipedia in the latter half of 2010, I cut my teeth on Christian music-related articles, beginning mainly with Christian metal but branching out from there. Over the course of five and a half years, I’ve had the privilege of working with many different editors at improving the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. Desiring to highlight their contributions, I approached four of these editors and asked if they would consent to an interview, and they each agreed. Allow me to introduce them:
The Cross Bearer began editing Wikipedia in early January 2015 under two different consecutive user names, which they soon abandoned. They adopted their current user name in late January of that year. An extremely prolific editor, in the year and a quarter since they joined, they have created almost 1,000 articles! Ilovechristianmusic started editing Wikipedia in April 2014. Since then they have created 16 articles and helped develop numerous others, logging over 1,800 edits. Royalbroil is an administrator on Wikipedia, and first contributed in June 2005. They have logged over 52,000 edits. They were promoted to administrator in November 26, 2007. Walter Görlitz has been active as an editor on the English Wikipedia since October 2004 and has made over 138,000 contributions in that time.
Thank you all four of you for taking the time to do this.
What prompted you to become a Wikipedia editor?
RB: I thought that building an online encyclopedia was a worthwhile endeavor. Wikipedia was pretty new in 2005 and there was a lot that I could do to help build and organize it. I keep contributing because I want to make the world a better place.
ILCM: The amount of incorrect information on Wikipedia. One day I pulled up Wiki to look up some information on a song, and the information supplied was unreliable, so I thought I would create an account to help better music articles.
TCB: The lack of coverage about many musicians and bands that are Christian music or even Christian music leaning on this encyclopedia. I went through a whole encyclopedia [Uncloudy Days by Bil Carpenter] on mainly black gospel musicians and found well over 60 articles that were not done [on Wikipedia].
WG: I saw a segment on The Colbert Report and began to investigate. I realized that Wikipedia allowed people to disseminate information and that has been a goal of mine since I graduated high school and so I started digging in. I edited articles on topics I understood a bit about, and then I became hooked on the process.
Royalbroil, you are an administrator on Wikipedia. How did that come about? Do the extra tools help you contribute to this project specifically?
RB: I wasn't aiming to become an admin. After I was here for several years, I was asked if I'd like to become an admin and I agreed to try. My biggest use of the tools is to delete images that I move over to Commons. I rarely use them on Christian music articles.
What motivated you to become a member of WikiProject Christian music? What kind of Christian music-related articles do you like to work on?
RB: I saw that Christian music articles were overlooked or non-existent. Overall, I enjoy working on articles that are more on the fringe of popular culture but are notable yet less interesting to many people. I rarely work on core topics. The Christian music articles that I edit the most are artists' articles.
ILCM: I saw the lack of detail and coverage under so many Christian music articles. I enjoy working on the WOW series, and popular artists at the moment such as TobyMac, Francesca Battistelli, UNITED, etc.
TCB: Well, it just simply goes hand-and-hand with my faith, and is something where it would naturally coincide with my beliefs. I am not nitpicky with regards to articles in the Christian music sector that merit articles on this encyclopedia. I am a lover of all music especially with messages about God and Jesus Christ.
WG: I was a DJ for a Christian music rollerskate from 1982 until 1998. I wanted to reach people with the gospel through Christian music. I had a lot of information in my head and wanted to share that information. I like to work on articles of bands I grew-up listening to, Daniel Amos (and other bands associated with Terry Scott Taylor), Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill (and other Solid Rock artists), early Christian hard rock and metal bands (Resurrection Band, Petra, Stryper, etc.) and Christian pop acts. I also work on genres that don’t have a lot of oversight: Christian hip hop and rap, CCM and worship music. I have a collection of about 5000 albums, and it’s growing. I usually have the articles of the albums I own on my watch list and also the artists. Some articles tend to attract more vandalism than others. I also watch them.
Do you contribute to any other subject areas on Wikipedia?
RB: I contribute lots of photographs taken during my travels, mainly in Wisconsin. I enjoy working on racing topics and I have much more work to do on that topic. When I'm a Wikipedia consumer and I see a major topic that is completely neglected, I'll do some research and cite the article (like I did with Gladhand connector recently).
ILCM: I primarily work on pop music articles, along with Christian music articles, and I sometimes venture into editing the Just Dance series.
TCB: Yes, mainly music and media stuff, when it needs to get done, I try my best to get it accomplished.
WG: Software testing, QA, and software development. I also contribute to several association football (soccer where I live, football in pretty much the rest of the planet) articles, particularly with MLS team articles and my favourite European team: FC Bayern Munich. As a Canadian, I also have several national topics on my watch list and I also have a few articles on my denomination and theology on my watch list as well.
TCB: It gives me a greater sense of fulfillment and appreciation with regards to others noticing my laboriously created articles.
Walter Görlitz, in the approximately ten years that you've edited on Wikipedia, what are some key changes have you seen, both within the WikiProject or the larger encyclopedia, and how do you feel about them?
WG: I think it’s harder for people to enter the “community” of editors now. When I started, you could try to improve articles and almost all content additions were accepted. Now, much of it is deleted if it’s not referenced, and if not deleted, it’s marked as needing references. It makes me sad to see people who just want to share things they’re excited about be kicked down. I recognize the rules (we call them policies, guidelines and manuals of style) but some find it easier to enforce the rules rather than extend grace. For instance, many association football player articles have a section for number of games played (caps) and goals scored. New editors will go in and update articles for obscure players and those changes are reverted by more senior editors simply because an associated field, the club statistics last updated field, has not been updated. It would take very little additional effort to put the date of the change into that field, but it often does not happen.
When I started, new editors were mostly people who wanted to share information. Now, I see a lot of people pushing their own agendas, whether that information is a personal website, band (either as a member, a manager, promoter or a fan), music or things like that. I understand why. A link to a site can boost your site’s search engine optimization (SEO) ranking. A link on a popular site can boost it even further. That just annoys me from a sharing economy mindset.
When I started, the rules were present but vague. Now they have gone two ways. On one side, they have become very formal and as I said, that formality can make a substantial barrier to editors who just want to share information. On the other side, some groups, commonly called “cabals” on Wikipedia, have formed. I reverted an editor once a few months ago only to find that an admin who protected that editor’s edits blocked me for “edit warring”. I explained my case and was eventually exonerated, but it was a tense time. While I was blocked, I found out that this admin had done this to multiple other editors over the previous four months. That’s an extreme case. On the association football side, everyone has run into the mindset that is controlled by a few long-term editors about how the articles should appear and information should be presented. They have permitted articles to exist for certain teams because a rule was created years ago that determines whether a club is or is not notable. It makes perfect sense in areas where clubs that in lower ranks are fully professional, but not in North America. So articles exists for clubs that should probably be deleted because of that rule. Similarly, articles exist for some players that probably should not and don’t exist for players that probably should have them all because they determine whether the article fits into a flawed criteria, not if the subject is or is not notable. I have probably been guilty of that on the music front where some new editors want some particular information displayed at the template at the top of the article (the infobox) but several editors don’t think it’s needed, and we create a type of wall of impenetrability to change.
What would you say are your favorite contributions as an editor?
RB: I really enjoyed researching the Brothertown Indians and it was my first DYK. I'm glad that some of the band articles that I started have become big names in the Christian music scene, like the Sidewalk Prophets and Addison Road.
ILCM: Adding missing information to articles, like release dates, changing out templates, track listings, and researching for information to add to articles.
TCB: I would say first and foremost the Jimmy Greene article, for the fact his daughter was killed in a hideous way at such a young age, where this was my impetus to get the article to DyK.
WG: When my local professional soccer team was playing in the USL, in 2010, I took it on myself to write a small program that would convert the daily results into something that could be used on Wikipedia. The top leagues usually get a lot of attention, but that year, a lower league had better and faster updates because of that. I made changes to one article in 2005 that has remained in that article unchanged. It has made that article a good example and I have seen people reference it in other discussions on the subject. It’s also a large table of numbers and so it’s been a target for people trying to test if they can edit Wikipedia over the years thinking that a small change will go unnoticed. It doesn’t. One other early edit was to the 1981 Daniel Amos article Horrendous Disc. It’s one of my favourite albums by the band. It too has stood the test of time, and the band’s manager has even edited that article and made improvements to those changes. I also helped define the criteria of what constitutes a “notable” recording.
Does your WikiProject collaborate with any other WikiProjects? What are some of the intersections of Christian music with other subject areas?
RB: Christian music articles rarely impact other WikiProjects, except for the band's home region.
ILCM: Not to my knowledge. Christian music doesn't really affect any other music articles, unless it's a cross–over situation like with Carrie Underwood.
TCB: I try to collaborate with everyone on this encyclopedia because we work better together in achieving the aims, focuses, and mission statement of this project as a whole.
WG: I have formally left all other WikiProjects and have only listed my name on the Christian Music Project and Music Project. I know about other projects and know where to go for help when I’m working on those articles, but I feel that don’t have the needed knowledge to contribute well on other projects.
Has your project formed any special workgroups or task forces?
RB: I initially joined WikiProject Contemporary Christian music and members later decided to change it to become a Workforce under the Christian music Wikiproject.
ILCM: I haven't joined any at the moment, but I would like to someday.
TCB: Not presently, while I believe we should be forming more task oriented groups to work on getting stuff expanded, fixed, or created in the first place.
WG: The Christian Music project has informally broken into areas of specialties and there is the “contemporary Christian music” workforce. On this project, one editor is excellent at finding sources and creating new articles that meet Wikipedia standards. I have turned to him to help gather sources when I’m not sure about a topic myself. The general music project has divided into genre-specific groups, Christian Music and CCM being two, but other genres as well. There are also special groups who focus on recordings and how to present them. I have been very active on the albums and less active on the single group. I have also been active in defining how artist articles should be displayed.
What are WikiProject Christian music's most pressing needs?
RB: I see the WikiProject as being in maintenance mode. It should be starting articles for new artists and keeping up on established artists' careers.
ILCM: Expansion, whether it's under an artist's article or a musical article. For an artist, there isn't much information available on them such as birthdates, birth places, or background. For musical articles, things like critical reception and background are especially lacking.
TCB: We have a lack of actively involved editors in addressing the subjects in our genre, whether it is expanding an article to explain why an artist is notable, such as Darrell Evans, or in creating good to great content from the get-go. Every piece someone could add in a beneficial way, is tremendously needed across the project and broader encyclopedia as a whole.
WG: Interesting question. I’ve never thought of the project as having any pressing needs. About two years ago I came to realizing that the Internet isn’t going anywhere soon and Wikipedia isn’t going to cease to exist if my current high-priority issues are not addressed. In my mind, there are many important musicians from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s who are not represented, at least not represented well, and I suppose that the project needs to have a more balanced approach. One musician, whose article is on my watch list, has resorted to updating himself, and he’s done a great job of it. Other artists tend to be promotional and that’s a shame. Other artists don’t even have articles.
What would you say are some of the most pressing issues for Wikipedia as a whole?
RB: Finding and retaining women contributors is a well-written answer to that question. Getting any newcomer to stay should be a pressing need. I imagine it would be very hard to be a newcomer. Consider the difficulty to learn the markup, all of the rules that I see veterans using to revert their editing, learning inline citations an article, and how many get their first articles nominated for deletion. The best thing that veterans should do is to offer to mentor new contributors. Help by improving their articles to show them the ropes. More contributors will stay.
ILCM: More experienced editors helping and welcoming newcomers, rather than biting them, and showing them pages to build their editing skills instead of assuming that they are disrupting/vandalizing on purpose. This especially on Pop music articles.
TCB: We have a lack of notable articles across all subject areas on Wikipedia, yet we need editors to craft articles in a manner where it showcases each individual subjects notability. Notability is not inherited it must be earned with coverage or merit, such as winning a GMA Dove Award, or being nominated multiple times.
WG: The same issue that affects most churches: being welcoming to newcomers. Both tend to be nice to people who are nice to them. I can see a rules-based community, like Wikipedia, being unwelcoming to people who break the rules.
How can a new contributor help the WikiProject today?
RB: I suggest approaching members and learn how to edit Wikipedia first. Having a mentor will make a much more pleasant experience.
ILCM: By trying and doing their best at editing at Wikipedia.
TCB: They should be aware Wikipedia will not by any means accept articles based on your favorite band, musician, or artist. Every article on Wikipedia must adhere to our policies and guidelines per GNG for its notability and existence on this encyclopedia, and for biographies it must not go against BLP by any means. We should engage them to create notable content in the areas of interest to them, with researching and finding topics for them to work on in an encyclopedic manner.
WG: I would encourage them come to Wikipedia with information and references, whether those are books, articles by reputable authors in reputable publications, or websites that are reputable. It doesn’t just have to be in music, but information can be shared. Be prepared to have your preconceptions challenged though. If you think something shouldn’t be present, you might want to check before removing it.
Any other final comments?
RB: Wikipedia is much more well respected now than when I started in 2005. I think that the major turning point happened when citations from reliable sources became a requirement. Consumers see the value in this encyclopedia. I see much less vandalism than five years ago.
TCB: I want editors as a whole to start getting stuff accomplished, rather than simply pondering what might be or will be done, if someone else does the task or work. I am only one believer amongst a couple billion, we should have all the content created that passes notability in a timely and effective manner.
@3family6: Thanks for contributing this. The WikiProject Report doesn't get as much attention as other sections in the Signpost, but it is one of my favorites because I enjoy learning about areas of the encyclopedia and the editors working there that I might not otherwise encounter. Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words. In doing this interview I realized that I would enjoy writing more of these. I'm thinking maybe some of the Science WikiProjects, with this being the Year of Science.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Worship music", as much as I personally dislike the term as a genre descriptor, is synonymous with "Contemporary worship music." This would distinguish it from traditional liturgical music such as hymnsorWestern classical. So I don't see a problem with that particular redirect. I'm not sure what your other criticism is about. I do welcome criticism of my writing, because as much as I may initially feel disappointed, it motivates me to write better. I will note that the interview is about the WikiProject, not Christian music. Secondly, the content after my write-up is mainly up to the interviewees to contribute. Finally, this WikiProject Report was rather unorthodox in that I included questions about the editors' activities outside the WikiProject. I experimented with a more holistic and personal approach, letting the editors talk about themselves and some of their other interests more than a conventional WikiProject report might. I do not know if I would take this approach again if I ever do another WikiProject Report.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I correctly assumed that you would not interview anyone with an interest in the kind of Christian music I like. It's not a criticism because there's probably not a lot of interest among Wikipedia editors in church music (this appears to be the Wikipedia article on the topic), compared to Christian music that sounds like everything else on the radio. I don't really have an interest in editing the Wikipedia articles about the music.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I actually would be interested in interviewing someone with your interest. I apologize if you felt left out. I did not follow the usual method of soliciting interviews for this piece. Usually the interviewer will post a notice on the WikiProject in question to request for interviewees. In this case, as an active participant in the WikiProject, at least two of the editors I interviewed I planned to interview from the get-go. I then looked through Category:WikiProject Christian music participants to find some active participants to solicit. You personally were not listed in that category, or else I might've found you and tried to include you to achieve some diversity in interest. I think part of the limitation of the project as a whole is that many of the editors of church music and the like are not listed as participants in the WikiProject. The other part of the limitation was that I did not publicly solicit for interviews. I certainly would not use the the methodology that I did in another WikiProject Report, and I do accept your criticism of my methodology in this case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No, you wouldn't have found me, as I have never actively edited articles related to my taste in Christian music. Actually, I've done more for the various Contemporary Christian genres. I noticed some omissions and decided this was a situation that needs correcting, even if I don't care for the music itself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose according to Google the term "Worship music" is not used for my kind of Christian music. However, I discovered some information that should be included in Contemporary worship music and Contemporary worship. Most of it was in blogs and I'm not sure how Wikipedia would view them as reliable sources but one source, which I couldn't access online without a subscription, I can see on paper at the library where I was today. I can still provide a URL of the article, I guess. The short version is that contemporary worship and its music are on the decline, and its biggest supporters are actually older. Some young people don't know anything else and one comment (in the blog, not a comment about the blog) was that this is a shame (and I forget whether this is the person writing or someone interviewed). Again, I am not saying anything that I have found in a reliable source, and I haven't seen the actual paper magazine yet, although it is dated 2011. More on this subject will have to be found, but I think it's an important development.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I haven't said yet that this is a problem. I know about this from when I was able to provide help. What I need help with is asking people to look at the blogs, if I can ever find them again, and decide whether the information can be used as is or whether we need to find other sources.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Second Nature is an actual, reliable online journal, with an ISSN and submission process and everything. I think I've read that article before, actually (and I can't say that I would be disappointed to see contemporary worship music go into decline). I don't think the Patheos post is reliable, though I've been unsure of how Patheos should be treated as a source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Digg
+ Add a comment
Discuss this story