Ear of the Behearer, a structural critique

I've been exploring the Behearer site over the past few days, thinking about contributing and not doing so on several occasions. In trying to interact with the site, I see some areas where the site could be improved, and I hope that my thoughts on the matter will be seen as constructive criticism rather than any kind of attack on the site or its creators, all of whom I have a lot of respect for. The basic issue is that I've come to believe that the wiki structure does not serve the site well and that they might have done better to look at other collaborative options before committing to that format for the site, which has the potential to be such a wonderful wealth of information.

Aesthetically, wiki offers little in the way of customization, and other than the colorful logo, the site is incredibly dull visually, especially considering the colorful music it intends to convey and represent. It also doesn't offer much in the way of autonomy in the field of other wiki based sites out there.

In terms of interactivity, there's no easy way to track activity or see where the actual discussion is taking place on the site. You can look at a complicated and clunky list of "recent changes," but I don't see any way to figure out where there is any interactive community based conversation about the music.  Considering the fact that in the "Note From The Management" says the site is intended to become "a common place to catalog, discuss, and debate," I feel that the latter two aspects of the project are not served by the wiki format.

The discussion/comments that do exist on the site are buried too deep within the hierarchy to have any prominence. From the front page, if I want to get to the discussion about Julius Hemphill's Dogon A.D., I have to click on the year 1972, the album name Dogon A.D., and then the "discussion" tab, only to find that the only discussion is a link to a review at Destination Out. And even if there was a vibrant discussion of the album going on, 90% of the visitors to the site would never know about it.

It's a shame to obscure such wonderful information and potentially potent discussion in this format, in my opinion. I apologize for not offering a viable alternative - the site already has momentum in its current format and the task of transferring the data would be impractical. Also, I understand that a considerable amount of effort has already gone into the site in its current incarnation. Perhaps someone who's more familiar with the backend of wiki could give some suggestions on possibilities to increase its interactivity.

Any comments/thoughts to bounce back and forth on the subject. My only agenda in bringing up the subject is making the resource better and more robust.

On a completely tangential linking note, check out the psychedelic art of Mati Klarwein, and the incredible archive of photos and audio interviews at Gallery 41.