I learned about the concerns expressed here, and as a musicologist, I know Prof. Hebert’s work, and confirm it is original and having an impact. I understand that the author of this article had supportive intentions that were fair and consistent with the mission of Wikipedia, but it is also clear that editors, sincerely motivated by the need for quality assurance, have some valid concerns that must be respected. Let’s also recall another Wiki guideline of the Five Pillars: “disparaging comments may be made about the subject of the article/author and about the author's motives . . . Remember not to bite the newcomers.” Hopefully, within some reasonable parameters, Wikipedia can encourage articles that summarize a scholar’s research and clearly explain its applications, since this could inspire exponential knowledge-sharing (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about: improving rapid, worldwide access to ideas). Articles on active scholars can also help inspire the general public (especially young people) to become more interested in the pursuit of knowledge. Probably in arts fields it is more difficult to do this than in the sciences: much harder to definitively prove what research is “significant”. Hopefully we can welcome articles on productive scholars that have some unique research with verifiable impact, and they should not all have to be Nobel prize-winners, retirees, or dead. It is inevitable that Wiki articles, produced anonymously for free, are most likely to be at least partially written by someone with unusual enthusiasm for the subject. There are already several examples of comparable academics in other fields who have Wikipedia entries, including a few in the fields of music education and musicology, so that seems to be the direction we are moving in 2015, with great potential for research findings to reach the general public worldwide. That said, there are valid reasons for the guidelines (to ensure significant, fair, and balanced articles), and it is clear, for example, that there have been far too many links and notes to support this entry. Those have now been cut back and I have simplified/streamlined the article and added several examples of opposing views in a new “Criticism” section that minimizes the issue of bias in this entry. To resolve concerns about citations to his blog, I have changed those to refer to Hebert’s listing on a Norwegian government website (CRISTIN), where researchers are legally obligated to represent themselves truthfully. I have also removed the links to Amazon, which helpfully offers “free previews” but might also suggest unintended marketing. I have also completely removed the External Links section to appease the editors, although it seems that in such cases some of these kind of links might be helpful for readers. I hope we can all agree that the concerns now seem to be resolved and it is okay to remove the warnings that had been placed on this entry.