[Harp-L] wikipedia harp

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fernando wrote:

"And actually, there are editors for wikis. That is, anybody can be  
an editor (2 bladed knife)"

Which is both the strength and the curse.  It works wonderfully for  
media type pages where obsessive fans can edit minutiae, but for  
actual history (which inherently needs an opinion) and factual data  
(which requires not just knowledge but understanding) it tends to  
fail miserably.

"And I believe that the work of editing the information available to  
the best of your knowledge is as important as the work to add new  
information, "

Agreed.

"and that, as the page gets more popular, more aknowledged potential  
editors might want to change what they know is wrong or misleading,  
thus refining the quality of the information display. "

Except that is not how it really works.  As it gets more popular more  
and more novices add their two cents and it actually becomes harder  
to edit.  Also, you do have to justify your edits, which can again be  
difficult--this is where opinion comes in.  Take the "positions"  
section.  I've actually edited that several times, but it keeps being  
changed back to what most people would view as fairly misleading (how  
many times have people on harp-l stressed that position and mode are  
not the same thing?).  Wikipedia allows people who have just gotten a  
grain of information to edit, and they often do (think of how excited  
you were when you first got online--you did everything that came by  
and thought it actually mattered).  Check out any other subject you  
actually know a fair amount about (aside from media types).  The same  
amount of inaccuracy applies throughout.

"I haven't checked the page, but you could have changed yourself the  
quotes that you have selected, contributing to the wik"

I have, but again, it's effort.  The truth about things like this  
tends to be that the people who have the most knowledge and the most  
to actually say on the topic tend to also not have the time, energy  
or desire to get involved because of the frustration level.  It's  
also why certain of the most knowledgeable people from harp-l's past  
tend not to post anymore--it becomes frustrating repeating oneself  
over and over and having to justify positions already taken and  
explained to newbies.  Wikipedia is the same.

I said that I have in fact edited much of that page and written a  
fair amount of the text.  But I got tired of it because it really is  
a massive effort for no reward--the attempt to constantly correct the  
misinformation is ongoing and never ending.  So why bother?  For the  
greater good?

Garry Hodgson wrote:
"well, first of all, a wiki is just a technology.  some have open  
editing,
some do not.  so you may as well say, "like all web sites it is a mixed
bag at best".  come to think of it, that might not be far off the  
mark.  :-)"

True.  I should have said wikipedia in specific.

"but the key point to wikipedia is that you can participate.  so if  
you don't like
what's there, why don't you fix it?"

I have.  And invariably either the old problems return or new ones  
come up.  In the end, it's futile.

"it would likely have taken you less time
than pointing out all the shortcomings.  "

No, it wouldn't.  It would take at least a day, if not more--I  
actually thought about it.  Plus, wikipedia doesn't allow massive  
deletion of information for the most part which is what is needed in  
large part--the entire thing needs reformating into a single central  
page and then smaller more specific stubs; that's a ton of work,  
certainly more than a brief email to harp-l.

" this list has plenty of people who
know an awful lot about harmonica, and if only a few of them
took a little time and effort, that section would be stellar."

No, it wouldn't.  Because they would not be the only contributors.   
Besides which, one of the things that is best about harp-l is that  
much of the information is debated.  You can actually see on the  
wikipedia site where such debates and viewpoints come in and end up  
conflicting with each other.

The idea of wikipedia is great, but like most things that propose  
true democracy, it is inherently flawed by the fact that people are  
not actually equal.  Thus the punk analogy.  There was some great  
punk music, but a ton of crap as well.  Same with anything that  
allows _anyone_ to participate: some good, but a ton of crap.  Now,  
for politics it's hard to see a better way, but for the dissemination  
of information on most topics, there is no reason to treat everyone  
equally.  An evolutionary biologist shouldn't have to continuously  
correct the quacks on the subject that he's actually worked hard to  
learn in detail.  That's the problem.

Which pretty much concludes any potentially harmonica-related parts  
of this subject.  If people wish to continue, I suggest we do so  
offlist.  Another option would be to post theoretical corrections to  
harp-l and then have a group or individual make those changes (good  
luck, and see if it is as easy to clean up as the supporters make it  
seem).



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