I'd like to explain my thoughts on FanConcert's information quality, and how that affects other things. FanConcert falls under a group of websites sometimes known as collaborative, meaning that all of the content comes from the users themselves. This is in constrast to news sites that have writers and some sort of editorial process.

I like to compare FanConcert to Wikipedia, since in effect I'm trying to build a better wiki. If you're familiar with wikis and their weaknesses, then you can expect that sometimes the information on them is just wrong for a variety of possible reasons. That's why they make poor primary resources, like for academic research.

I would put FanConcert on much the same level. People are contributing new information and moderating other people's information. Just because a piece of information is modded highly that doesn't mean it's true, it just means that a lot of other people have agreed with it.

The advantage of using a moderation scoring system over a wiki, is that on a wiki there's no way to tell how many people have agreed with a piece of information. If you disagree with a wiki, you correct it. If you agree, you'll probably just leave it alone. There's no permanent record of the fact that you've agreed. On FanConcert you'll be able to say "yes, I agree that's a true piece of information" or say "no, I think that information is false" or just do nothing at all.

All of that moderation doesn't make FanConcert infallible. The hardest part will be conveying to users that while the information on FanConcert isn't 100% reliable and never can be, it is pretty good most of the time. I'd rather make this clear than have them find out for themselves because they believed bad information. Make a prominent disclaimer on every page that users should verify things like concert dates on primary sources like artist, venue or ticket seller official web sites.

So we'll emphasize the fact that FanConcert is a secondary source of information, not a primary source[1]. Wikipedia has a place for links to primary sources but doesn't explain/disclaim its status as a secondary source very well, in my opinion. Maybe it's because they don't want to admit it? That's a real shame because it seems that people that think Wikipedia is a primary source (like the mainstream media, who criticize it on that basis) hurt Wikipedia's credibility as a fabulous secondary source. Critics are looking at Wikipedia, seeing it's infallibility and dismissing it outright because they don't understand it.

Once FanConcert users realize that the information on FanConcert is incorrect sometimes, they will be more likely to contribute. That may seem a little weird but it's just human nature. Would you contribute information to a site if you thought it would just get rejected because it's not perfect? Probably not, you wouldn't want to waste your time double or triple checking it.

I'd like to allow casual submissions to the extent that it's easy and quick to submit new things. That includes having a minimum number of required fields of forms -- or better: really small forms for new submissions. That doesn't mean that the submitted information will be moderated up but it means that it's easy for anyone to submit information to FanConcert in the first place, just like it's easy to edit a wiki. The easier it is to enter information, the more contributors there will be, which as a bonus makes FanConcert more timely with new information.

So there's a whole psychological domino effect going on there and we have wikis to thank for it. While I'm busy trying to improve and supplant the wiki as a collaborative tool (for some types of sites) I'm picking out its weaknesses but I also shouldn't forget why it succeeds.

[1] FanConcert could be a primary source of information sometimes if Artists, Venues or Record Labels submit information themselves as an "official source". That would be interesting! Obviously information from one of these sources would have a higher initial moderation score, but people are still infallible, so it could be corrected by other regular users. I talked a bit about "expert" contributors in my criticism of wikis called Unequal Voices.