American Whiskey Wikipedia Articles

[Josh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't this just a living encyclopedia?

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

[mozilla]

I don't agree with your assessment.

[spun_cookie]

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]

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]

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]

High Rye BT...AA, AAA, RHF, HPR, Blantons, Virginia Gentleman all use the high rye mashbill.

[barturtle]

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]

Don't forget about Benchmark. It is the AA of this mashbill.

[barturtle]

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]

I thought something was missing from my previous list. ETL, thanks.

[kickert]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.