[Harp-L] wiki harp

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

BostonMoeJo posted the cryptic message of just this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonica

Ah, the wiki harmonica page.  Like all wikis it is a mixed bag at  
best.  There is some information there which would be of use to those  
first coming to the subject, a ton of useless stuff, some misleading  
stuff and some just plain wrong stuff.  For those who actually, you  
know, want to research it's best to use a wiki as a source of links  
and a brief input to get ideas to more thoroughly research.

The problem with wikis is the same as someone once described as the  
problem with Punk.  I believe the phrase was (and I'm butchering it)  
"The great thing about Punk was that it posited that anyone could  
play music.  The problem was that anyone did."  The same with wikis-- 
the great idea is that anyone can edit them (though you do have to  
sort of join--it's gotten more complex), the problem is again that  
anyone does.  Thus, they work best for the truly obsessive areas  
where hard-facts are more easily come by (for history, they are  
simply crap)--stuff like wrestling, comic books and the like.  But,  
everytime I've looked up something which I actually have researched  
elsewhere, they fall far short in almost every way.

There is a reason why proper encyclopediae have editors, and it's not  
just because pre-internet you needed people to collate all the data.   
It's because there needs to be an actual ability to edit what  
information should be contained, and to correct factual mistakes.   
That can't really be done with a wiki.

For instance, with the harmonica wiki you get a ton of information on  
alternate tunings, to the degree that you would think these are an  
important feature in the harmonica scene.  They aren't (and remember,  
I like, use and advocate for alternate tunings often).  Simply put,  
they are so insignificant that they shouldn't even appear in an  
encyclopedia entry except as an aside--when talking about the main  
tuning a phrase such as "other tunings, allowing for different scales  
and chords, such as the minor, have also been used".   And  
alternative chromatic tunings are essentially non-existent, so why  
mention them (and again, I enjoy them and advocate them here--but  
this isn't an encyclopedia).

Also, there's pure and simple factual errors.  Take this:

"In the 1970s, Howard Levy developed the "overbending" technique,  
which, combined with bending, allowed players to play the entire  
chromatic scale"

First, Howard never called it "overbending"--it's a word that has  
been proposed on harp-l often enough, including by me (though I've  
pretty much abandoned it as unweildy), but not one Howard has ever  
used to the best of my knowledge, and certainly not one most people  
who make extensive use of overblows use.  This is a case where the  
supposed "objective data" status of wikis are proved inherently false  
(humans are never objective--that's why real historians actually  
state their biases up front or allow them to be infered from their  
acknowledgements and bibliographies).  Second, this is misleading.   
Yes, Howard developed the technique, but he didn't invent it, which  
this implies.  He was the first to systemmatically use it, which is  
impressive enough, but again this shows a bit of a bias by the way  
the data is presented.

The next sentence is worse:

"When bending, the player forces the lower of the two reeds in a  
chamber to vibrate faster. "

Simply put, no, that's not what happens.  The essence of dual reed  
bending is not vibration speed but rather resonance coupling forcing  
the opposing reed to speak when it normally cannot--it is forced to  
act as an opening reed rather than it's natural state as a closing  
reed.  The vibration speed mostly likely is affected, but not as the  
causative factor.

Then there's this:

"most diatonic players prefer to use either use the chromatic,  
different keys of diatonic harmonicas, or (recently) use valved  
diatonics or XB-40 for different songs, matching the possibilities of  
glissandos, register and dynamics of a given harmonica to a melody."

Where to begin?  Most diatonic players do not prefer to use the  
chromatic--then they wouldn't be diatonic players--it seems to me  
we've had a few debates about this very phenomena recently.  Few  
people use valved diatonics or the XB-40 at all, certainly not enough  
to be worth mentioning in a broad overview (really, not enough to be  
mentioned in a specific overview, it would take a very detailed list  
before you got to this as anything other than a side-bar).  The only  
part that is accurate is the part about choosing different keys for  
the particular song.

Really, the entire page can be similarly taken apart.  It's best  
value is at the bottom: the links section (true for even the  
obssessive wiki pages).

I've actually written a fair amount of the stuff on that page and  
edited others.  But I gave up as it's just too much work--I simply  
don't have the time.  I was actually thinking today of a way to  
simplify and expand on it at the same time, but again, if I actually  
wanted to do that much work I'd make my own website and invite  
suggestions.

One final comment, here's another example of what is at best  
misleading, but is really false:

"Note: The choice of reed-plate material is expressly dependent upon  
the individual player's preference."

No, it isn't.  It's entirely dependent on the manufacturer and what  
they choose.  The player basically has the macro choice of what  
harmonica they want to play, but that has a lot of factors, with reed- 
plate material being essentially not one of them: you have your  
choice of bronze in a very small  variety of flavors, but that's it.   
Want plastic?  Too bad.  Steel? Nope.  Aluminum? Not anymore.   
Plastic? Again, not anymore.  I wouldn't call having a choice between  
bronze and bronze as being "expressly dependent" upon any preference  
of the player--it is dictated by the manufacturer, primarily for ease  
of stamping.

Wikis are great for a broad overview, but when they try to get into  
greater detail, like the harmonica wiki, they tend to fail  
miserably.  If you want a really good wiki, try these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Dudley

Broad overviews, short and succinct, with links to greater detail.




 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'