|
14 Jul 07 - 01:59 AM (#2102192) Subject: BS: Wikipedia and Folk music From: wayland Hi all. I notice that the folk music pages of Wikipedia are underwritten compared to some of the others. If anyone wants to help with the folk sections of one of the world's most frequently referred to encyclopedias, there's a project co-ordinating the efforts at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Roots_music If you want to get involved, please go to the discussion page for that project on Wikipedia and talk about the kind of music you are interested in. Help will appear (although the response time is likely to be measured in days). If you're only interested in one particular type of folk music (eg. blues, Celtic, Electric folk (uk-style), folk rock, old-time, or whatever), but want to get involved, then the discussion page mentioned above could be a good forum for setting up a project dedicated to your specific type of folk music. |
|
14 Jul 07 - 03:50 AM (#2102225) Subject: RE: BS: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Sandra in Sydney thanks for that, Wayland, I've posted it on 2 Oz folk lists sandra |
|
14 Jul 07 - 04:36 AM (#2102243) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: The Sandman thanks Wayland, I shall make use of it. |
|
03 Jul 08 - 08:39 PM (#2380585) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Why isn't there a Mudcat Wiki article (ie, page)? It's referenced by a number of articles, but doesn't have one of its own (that I can find!). Is anyone interested in starting one or contributing if I start it? Don |
|
04 Jul 08 - 06:39 AM (#2380834) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Refresh |
|
04 Jul 08 - 07:22 AM (#2380852) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane Don't ask, just do it! I have previously set up Wikipedia pages. I found it easiest to find a suitable one to copy. (You can use Edit to copy and then paste the format from one another similar page) |
|
04 Jul 08 - 02:41 PM (#2381135) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST,Chris P. There is a project called Folkopedia. I don't know its url. |
|
04 Jul 08 - 02:50 PM (#2381142) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST,Lord Batman's Kitchener Here's that URL, Chris P. Folkopedia |
|
04 Jul 08 - 03:13 PM (#2381158) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Thanks for pointing out out Folkopedia. However, it appears to contain very little information, and of course also doesn't seem to have Mudcat. I'll take Pavane's advice on setting up the page and notify Mudcat so catters can contribute whenever they want. Don |
|
04 Jul 08 - 03:21 PM (#2381159) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: johnadams Thanks for pointing out out Folkopedia. However, it appears to contain very little information Folkopedia All pages link |
|
04 Jul 08 - 03:46 PM (#2381179) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver OK, that looks a bit more promising. My searches earlier on today didn't turn up much, so I got the idea that it was just taking off. I'll take another look. |
|
04 Jul 08 - 03:54 PM (#2381189) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: johnadams It's about 12 months old and I estimate that there's another two years to go before it reaches 'critical mass'. J |
|
04 Jul 08 - 07:48 PM (#2381298) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST,Barry Devine But it looks very Euro and AngloAm centric. |
|
04 Jul 08 - 07:56 PM (#2381302) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Seems like Folkopedia is misnamed as it is only geared to one style. |
|
05 Jul 08 - 04:25 AM (#2381475) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Susanne (skw) I think the key is in the letters 'efdss' which are part of the address - obviously a project of the English Folk Dance and Song Society and therefore bound to be somewhat Euro/Anglo centric. |
|
05 Jul 08 - 04:39 AM (#2381479) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST,Shimrod It seems to me that the 'Folkopedia' project has been treated in a rather surly and grudging fashion by some of the contributors to this thread. Actually, I think that Folkopedia is brilliant - and a model of what can be achieved through the use of Internet technology. People should focus on what Folkopedia actually is rather than what they would prefer it to be. After all, if you want something else then you can always create it yourself! |
|
05 Jul 08 - 05:13 AM (#2381484) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Malcolm Douglas |
|
05 Jul 08 - 05:35 AM (#2381490) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Malcolm Douglas Hmm. Let's try that again. 'Shimrod' makes a good point. Rather than carping, if people feel that Folkopedia doesn't yet cover things that they think it ought to, they might try registering as contributors and actually contributing; provided that they are prepared to use their real names and take responsibility for what they say. Be warned, though; it is a peer-reviewed wiki. I quote: 'Please note that all contributions to Folkopedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.' Because it is intended, ultimately, as an educational resource, it is vital that the information it contains be accurate and verifiable. For that reason if for no other, it will grow more slowly than other wikis where anonymous contributions are allowed, or for that matter forums such as this, where discussion is the main business and (up to a point) people who don't know what they are talking about are as welcome to have their say as are those who do. It may be time to stop re-inventing the wheel, and concentrate instead on making the wheels that we already have as good as they can be. |
|
05 Jul 08 - 07:02 AM (#2381520) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: johnadams Thank you Shimrod and Malcolm Douglas for words of support. Folkopedia does what it states it does and is part of an educational resource aimed at children, students and enthusiasts. As such it needs to be free of errors and assumptions and also free of profanity and all the other unsavoury things that can creep into public access wikis. I make no apologies for this and if, as Malcolm says, that policy slows growth then so be it. It's a price to pay. It isn't particularly anything-centric. It starts with England because that's where it lives and the structure hopefully allows the inclusion of related content from everywhere else. As we hear continually on this forum, music knows no national boundaries and if looking at an 'English' tune on Folkopedia ultimately cross references the user to a Polish version, a Canadian version, and an Eskimo version, etc. then brilliant - the world has just become a bigger but closer place. To me there's a percentage in somebody posting an American version of a song/tune next to the English version because someone looking through with an 'English' mindset will happen on something they wouldn't have otherwise found because they hadn't gone out looking for American songs/tunes. Serendipity is a wonderful thing. One thing Folkopedia CAN do very well is to provide a focus for people looking for stuff. I love Wikipedia but it's often only 100% useful if you know what you're looking for. Folkopedia can bring lots of related folk threads together by a combination of carrying content itself and referencing other sites like Wikipedia. Folkopedia has a policy with regard to Wikipedia. If there's a good article, nick the first paragraph as a taster, put it up on Folkopedia and then link to the full article. We also suggest putting an entry in the Wikipedia page pointing folks to other similar stuff on Folkopedia. It becomes a true network. It isn't a matter of what's better or worse than anything else. I don't see the resource as being in competition with any other resource and I will certainly factor in the Wikipedia Folk Project to what we're doing with Folkopedia. There really is room for everybody in this job of making people aware of good music and diverse culture. Johnny Adams Folkopedia http://folkopedia.efdss.org/Main_Page |
|
05 Jul 08 - 09:00 AM (#2381584) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST Serendipity is a wonderful thing??? I can't imagane anyone arguing that it's crap.... |
|
05 Jul 08 - 09:39 AM (#2381612) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST,Barry Devine No need to get huffy about it. Perhaps the title of the article entry needs to be amended to reflect what it actually is--an English folk music article. |
|
06 Jul 08 - 07:04 AM (#2382251) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Stephen L. Rich is it just me or are we veering dangerously close to the "What is Folk?" agument again? Stephen Lee |
|
06 Jul 08 - 08:24 AM (#2382268) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Spleen Cringe Stephen - no we're not. Pleeeease... Guest, Barry - I don't see anyone getting huffy, I see the bloke who set up Folkepedia taking the trouble to explain to you what it is and what it has the potential to become. Can you not understand that if a folk resource is started in England it may just be slanted that way initially - until people from elsewhere also start contributing? I'm also glad to see the safeguards against anonymity and innaccuracy and so on that have been put in place. I always feel relief when I heard those magic words, 'peer reviewed'... Personally I think it's an excellent initiative and I wish Johnny and the others involved all the best. |
|
29 Jul 08 - 08:53 PM (#2400874) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver OK, I've started a basic Wikipedia article for Mudcat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudcat_Cafe However, I'm relatively new to Mudcat, and don't feel qualified to describe in any detail its history, etc. Also, I've avoided mentioning any names, as I don't know whether people want this (or maybe they would like to take the credit?). I can over time expand the article to take in the different parts of Mudcat, information on the songs, etc., but of course others better acquainted with Mudcat may like to take the initiative and contribute as they think fit. Ideas? Don |
|
30 Jul 08 - 03:10 AM (#2401009) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane So it was you who crashed Wikipedia then. |
|
30 Jul 08 - 03:12 AM (#2401011) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane That should have had a Seriously, it does seem to be out of action this morning. |
|
30 Jul 08 - 03:14 AM (#2401012) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane AH, of course, the GRIN does not get through to the post because of HTML!!! |
|
30 Jul 08 - 04:52 AM (#2401052) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Sandra in Sydney Gulliver - you'll find a lot of Mudcat history on this thread sandra ps. thanks for your wikipedia page |
|
30 Jul 08 - 09:42 AM (#2401209) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: DamianNixon Wikipedia? Does anyone read that crap? |
|
30 Jul 08 - 09:46 AM (#2401213) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact. (May be true, though, as I have written some of it) |
|
30 Jul 08 - 09:52 AM (#2401221) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane Someone could edit the ABC page in WIKIPEDIA to add a reference (under MUSIC?) to abc tune format, too. Unfortunately, I can't update it from here. |
|
30 Jul 08 - 01:14 PM (#2401457) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Sandra, thanks for the tip. I'll edit the article bit by bit as I get the time and I've no doubt others will do the same. Pavane, I'll take a look at that when I'm on Wikipedia. I suppose Damian Nixon is entitled to his opinion. However, as IT consultant and webmaster for a library, I know that Wikipedia is getting a LOT of attention internationally in the academic community. Don |
|
30 Jul 08 - 07:49 PM (#2401792) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Sandra in Sydney no worries, mate, I'll look forward to the updates. sandra |
|
30 Jul 08 - 08:18 PM (#2401821) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: bobad Taking a look at the entry it looks like a British music site, maybe a little info about it's creator and the North American folk music scene is warranted. |
|
30 Jul 08 - 08:32 PM (#2401828) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Pavane, abc is already in there, under Music=>Other=>abc notation, which links to the wiki/Abc_notation site. In the German Wiki "ABC Musiknotation" is listed under "Computers and Software"--there's no heading for Musik. I've suggested setting this up. Don |
|
30 Jul 08 - 09:12 PM (#2401855) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Bobad, you're right. The article is just going through its birth pangs at the moment and will expand in time. I did mention both British Folk Music and American Folk Music to distinguish between the two forms, and those phrases will link to an existing Wiki article, probably "Folk Music", where they are both explained. I intend mentioning also other cultures that are discussed on the Forum or represented in the database. I'd like to get the go-ahead from some of the individuals involved in the site's creation before mentioning too many names--some folks may not want their names on Wikipedia. This means PM'ing a few folk. There will also be other language versions of the Mudcat Cafe article (eventually!). thanks, Don |
|
31 Jul 08 - 03:00 AM (#2401969) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane Gulliver, Just thought it should be on the ABC page too. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 03:07 AM (#2401971) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Nigel Parsons Gulliver: Nice start, links (URLs) for Folkopaedia & EDFSS, surely it needs one for Mudcat? Cheers Nigel |
|
31 Jul 08 - 08:44 AM (#2402127) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: GUEST,Whitehorse Glad this Wiki has been done. Look forward to seeing the finished product (well, it'll never really finish, will it?). Would be nice if others pitch in. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:14 AM (#2402157) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Thanks Nigel--it's done. Don |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:15 AM (#2402159) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Pavane, as far as I can see, it IS on the ABC page. Do you mean something different? Maybe PM me? thanks, Don |
|
31 Jul 08 - 10:34 AM (#2402229) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: pavane YOU ARE RIGHT!! I must be going blind (Wonder why) |
|
31 Jul 08 - 04:54 PM (#2402573) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Susanne (skw) Thanks, Don, for making a start! I'm sure contributions will now be pouring in ... If I didn't still have a job I'd probably spend my days adding to Wikipedia. As it is, I've got to be careful, alas! You coming over again some time? |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:54 PM (#2402771) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver Hi Susanne, Well, at least a start has been made... I've been to Hannover twice over the past couple of months to visit a friend who was ill, but I don't think I'll make it again this year, unless there's something special on. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 12:50 PM (#2403122) Subject: RE: Wikipedia and Folk music From: Gulliver I think I've gotten around concerns I had in the Wikipedia Mudcat article about naming people by simply providing Dick Greenhaus's 1999 article on the origin of the Digital Tradition as a reference and linking to it (www.mudcat.org/DigiTrad-blurb.cfm ). Dick got back to me saying he has no problem being named and his article is a great overview of the start of the DT and how it subsequently developed. Don |