PDA

View Full Version : American Whiskey Wikipedia Articles



Josh
08-13-2008, 10:14
Don't know how many wp nerds there are out there but just about all of the Bourbon and American whiskey wikipedia articles could use a lot of work. When I get the time (and some more reference materials) I'll get started on fixing them up myself. Maybe an American Whiskey or Bourbon Wikiproject could be started. Any takers?

Just to get things going, here's links to a few of the articles most in need of help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye_whiskey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Craig
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Turkey_(bourbon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Roses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrot_%26_Graham%27s_Old_Oscar_Pepper_Distillery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_T._Stagg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Larue_Weller

Here's the category listing for bourbon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bourbon_whiskey

cowdery
08-13-2008, 11:01
I've taken a stab at it. It's a great time-waster. I say that because I've "fixed" things only to have some boob unfix them. I do believe the Wikipedia system works, but the process can be frustrating in the short term. I periodically check the main entrees, like "bourbon whiskey," but rarely drill down to stuff about individual brands. You can easily get sucked into spending a lot of time on it.

Josh
08-18-2008, 12:15
I've taken a stab at it. It's a great time-waster.

You say that like it's a bad thing. But you're probably right. I should be getting back to trying to synthesize bourbon out of corn syrup and Worcestershire sauce now.:grin:

JasonFalls
08-22-2008, 00:09
I think the folks here on SB are the perfect people to help fix or expand the wikipedia articles. I've dealt with them a little bit but Wikipedia, as they probably should be, is a little careful and suspect of the official PR or marketing people from brands supplying information or editing the articles. We've approached them with the attitude that we just want them to be accurate and aren't trying to put marketing spin or anything on them and have had some success, but Wikipedia trust you guys more than us.

As much as Chuck has expressed frustration above, the more people from the "community" that are participating in making the pages better, the better they'll be.

mozilla
08-22-2008, 08:18
Wikipedia will never have the info that can be found here or on other bourbon related sites. Let the masses access our community for their bourbon info fix. Wiki should just have a link to SB. Let's keep it real.

ratcheer
08-22-2008, 14:00
As much as Chuck has expressed frustration above, the more people from the "community" that are participating in making the pages better, the better they'll be.

I agree. I read an article in the WSJ a couple of weeks ago about Wikipedia. There is a huge push/pull between those who want to carefully control what is entered and edited and others (who include the founder of Wikipedia) who want it to be totally "open". After reading and rereading the article, I find that I am more in agreement with the open camp. Hit and run article vandalism is very frustrating, but it comes along with the consequences of fulfilling the original dream that everyone should be able to contribute what they know.

Tim

cowdery
08-23-2008, 13:33
Here's a positive example. I was scanning the different pages about American whiskey and related topics and came across the entry for moonshine. On a subject in which almost everything you read almost everywhere is wrong, Wikipedia has it almost perfect, and with extraordinary detail about off-the-grid distillation around the world.

Attila
08-23-2008, 23:22
Let the masses

That just sounds really strange to me. Aren't we all a part of the masses? The purpose of Wikipedia and this board seem to be pretty different.

mozilla
08-24-2008, 08:46
Yes, we are all part of the masses.

I don't go to Wikipedia for any information...especailly bourbon related.

If someone wants the strait dope on bourbon...I can't think of a better place than a bourbon site. Isn't this just a living encyclopedia?

Attila
08-24-2008, 16:22
Isn't this just a living encyclopedia?

No, because there is absolutely no attempt at organisation or indexing, or updating.

mozilla
08-24-2008, 16:27
I don't agree with your assessment.

spun_cookie
08-24-2008, 17:07
No, because there is absolutely no attempt at organisation or indexing, or updating.



I don't agree with your assessment.


well, it is not quite an encyclopedia, but it is an organized system of data that can be searched.

There top and second tier filling systems, but below that it is near chaos, but in a good way. This site is almost and organism compared to and organized filling system.

I see it in the middle of y'all's descriptions

Attila
08-24-2008, 18:48
I don't agree with your assessment.

You are right. "Absolutely" is far too strong of a word. I am probably were Spun Cookie is on this.

kickert
08-24-2008, 20:24
well, it is not quite an encyclopedia, but it is an organized system of data that can be searched.


I disagree here. Let me give you an example. The other day I wanted to know what bourbons were made from each of the BT mashbills and I could not remember which had high rye. I search and searched, but the information was never together in one place (at least not that I could find).

There is plenty of knowledge on the subject and people reference that knowledge all the time, but as for being able to pull that knowledge out at will, that is simply not possible.

mozilla
08-25-2008, 06:14
High Rye BT...AA, AAA, RHF, HPR, Blantons, Virginia Gentleman all use the high rye mashbill.

barturtle
08-25-2008, 06:24
And the low rye mashbill list is here


There was another post from Ken that said that Eagle Rare and Old Charter were the same mashbill.

Continuing with Ken's posts, he said that they were stopping the production of Eagle Rare 101 to let it age longer to fill some need in more popular brands

Following this train of thought, what are they going to use it for? Could Old Charter 12 and 13 be popular enough these days to eliminate Eagle Rare? Or is it just going to be used for Stagg/ER 17? Or as Ken also said BT is from that mashbill, could they be getting ready for an older, age-statemented BT? Or maybe just some fill to bump up the average age of BT?

Still think I need to get as many of these side-by-side to try. I count 9 current bottlings here (Okay, 8 as I counted ER101)
ERSB 10
ER 17
GTS
BT
OC 8
OC 10
OC 12
OC 13

Damn, That's a lot of really good whiskey off of one mashbill. I think it wins my vote for favorite mashbill!

No offense meant here, as I know that it's a matter of business and long term projections and such, just some simple speculation on my part. Always hopeful for new products and ways to compare them to each other.

mozilla
08-25-2008, 08:40
Don't forget about Benchmark. It is the AA of this mashbill.

barturtle
08-25-2008, 09:00
Don't forget about Benchmark. It is the AA of this mashbill.

True it is an old list...Old Charter 101 should be added as well.

And Elmer T Lee should be added to the high rye, I believe

mozilla
08-25-2008, 09:02
I thought something was missing from my previous list. ETL, thanks.

kickert
08-25-2008, 10:31
You all have illustrated my point perfectly. There is plenty of information, but when it comes to searching it is spread out in a hundred different places, and sometimes conflicting. So which mashbill is #1 and which is #2?? Also, I have seen conflicting reports where Benchmark is listed as part of the low rye mashbill instead of the high rye. Which is it?

barturtle
08-25-2008, 10:43
You all have illustrated my point perfectly. There is plenty of information, but when it comes to searching it is spread out in a hundred different places, and sometimes conflicting. So which mashbill is #1 and which is #2?? Also, I have seen conflicting reports where Benchmark is listed as part of the low rye mashbill instead of the high rye. Which is it?

You are correct, the knowledge is spread out and hard to find...I have no problems with that as I think it has been made too easy for people to appear to be experts on a subject without putting the required research and effort into learning the information.

kickert
08-25-2008, 13:05
You are correct, the knowledge is spread out and hard to find...I have no problems with that as I think it has been made too easy for people to appear to be experts on a subject without putting the required research and effort into learning the information.

Sounds a bit elitist to me. I don't want the knowledge so I can sound like an expert - I genuinely want to learn. Spending longer researching doesn't make for a better bourbon lover - in fact it may turn people off from learning about it.

barturtle
08-25-2008, 13:40
Sounds a bit elitist to me. I don't want the knowledge so I can sound like an expert - I genuinely want to learn. Spending longer researching doesn't make for a better bourbon lover - in fact it may turn people off from learning about it.

But in your search for one piece of knowledge you may run across another factoid that you wouldn't have otherwise discovered...that is the important part of acquiring knowledge, not the main facts, but the little nuggets that make those facts worthwhile.

ratcheer
08-25-2008, 15:13
High Rye BT...AA, AAA, RHF, HPR, Blantons, Virginia Gentleman all use the high rye mashbill.

Also, Elmer T. Lee.

Plus more characters to try to get to 24.

Tim

mozilla
08-25-2008, 19:08
You all have illustrated my point perfectly. There is plenty of information, but when it comes to searching it is spread out in a hundred different places, and sometimes conflicting. So which mashbill is #1 and which is #2?? Also, I have seen conflicting reports where Benchmark is listed as part of the low rye mashbill instead of the high rye. Which is it?

It doesn't matter which is one and which is two...there is a high rye and a low rye. Benchmark is in the low rye with Charter.

Yes, we added ETL a couple of posts ago. It is high rye.

kickert
08-25-2008, 19:37
But in your search for one piece of knowledge you may run across another factoid that you wouldn't have otherwise discovered...that is the important part of acquiring knowledge, not the main facts, but the little nuggets that make those facts worthwhile.
I completely agree with this. But the same is also true of a well catagorized system. In fact, I think it is more so. For instance, maybe I was curious about BT mashbills because I really like Eagle Rare. That leads to me the entire mashbill and I find out OC is the same juice, from there I track down the history of OC back to UD and follow that trail.

Now that could happen with a forum as well, but it is just as likely to produce lots of random thoughts and personal opinions.

barturtle
08-25-2008, 19:52
I completely agree with this. But the same is also true of a well catagorized system. In fact, I think it is more so. For instance, maybe I was curious about BT mashbills because I really like Eagle Rare. That leads to me the entire mashbill and I find out OC is the same juice, from there I track down the history of OC back to UD and follow that trail.

Now that could happen with a forum as well, but it is just as likely to produce lots of random thoughts and personal opinions.

Ah but the personal thoughts and random asides are some of the things that have really expanded the knowledge base here...somethings just don't have neat little shelves to be put on, or are only brought up in someones memory and posted due to someone else making a comment about something.

kickert
08-26-2008, 05:10
Ah but the personal thoughts and random asides are some of the things that have really expanded the knowledge base here...somethings just don't have neat little shelves to be put on, or are only brought up in someones memory and posted due to someone else making a comment about something.
I completely agree with you here - that is why I read and post here. I have found if I am looking for reviews I will go to BE.com, if I want lively discussion about bourbon and the perspective of knowledgeable lovers of bourbon I come here. However, I have yet to find that place to go if I want to learn specifics about bourbon. That is where wikipedia (or even a well researched, well designed bourbon site) would come in handy. The forums just do not fulfill that role. Take this example. I wanted to learn about how a mashbill can affect bourbon and how different distilleries use various mashbills. I was also curious what the general proportions of grains each bourbon had. This tread (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7043&highlight=totm+mashbill)looked to hold tremendous potential, but after reading through it, I found it was not very heavy on facts. That is probably because in conversaiton (a forum) you don't just list facts, you discuss issues.

All that is to say there is a place for review pages, a place for forums, and a place for organized information. None of these are more valid than the next. I have found a place for the first two, but have yet to find a place for the second. I am not convicned the forums are a sufficient substitute for the other two.

kickert
08-26-2008, 05:11
By the way, I am surprised no one has mentioned Whiskypedia.com (http://www.whiskipedia.org/)

barturtle
08-26-2008, 06:07
Take this example. I wanted to learn about how a mashbill can affect bourbon and how different distilleries use various mashbills. I was also curious what the general proportions of grains each bourbon had. This tread (http://www.straightbourbon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7043&highlight=totm+mashbill)looked to hold tremendous potential, but after reading through it, I found it was not very heavy on facts. That is probably because in conversaiton (a forum) you don't just list facts, you discuss issues.

All that is to say there is a place for review pages, a place for forums, and a place for organized information. None of these are more valid than the next. I have found a place for the first two, but have yet to find a place for the second. I am not convinced the forums are a sufficient substitute for the other two.

I believe you may have found one of the problems that is not an issue with the site, but an issue with the distillers: THEY AIN'T TELLING! Sure we have books that tell us approximate proportions, but each book disagrees with the others on this. It's not that the authors aren't using the most accurate info the distillers are giving them, but the industry is not willing to give accurate info. Could the differences be because one time they are quoting "by weight" and another time "by volume"? Have there been changes in the mashbill since the last time they gave that info? I don't know.

So until the distillers are willing to officially publish such info we are all gonna have to deal with such inaccuracies.

ratcheer
08-26-2008, 14:37
Yes, we added ETL a couple of posts ago. It is high rye.

Well, that's what I get for replying to a post before reading all the following posts.

Tim