Folkopedia

Subject: Folkopedia
From: Mo the caller
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 12:23 PM

I expect you already know about this
(and someone will tell me where I should have searched for some discussion that I've missed)

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 12:32 PM

Kewl! Haven't seen anything about it, before, that I recall. Thanks!

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 01:11 PM

THat looks as if it may well become very useful

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 02:10 PM

More junk lacking peer review and references.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:32 PM

Actually, it's peer reviewed - if you'd care to inspect it before making assumptions.

See http://folkopedia.efdss.org/FolkopediaFolk

Johnny Adams

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Scoville
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

Here's hoping somebody branches out into the folkways of some other countries.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: skipy
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM

No! but, WOW! what a toy, what a tool!
Skipy, well done MO (in the Red jacket)

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:02 PM

John Adams- I did. There are provisions for section editors- none named. The name of the organizer, Johnny Adams, is the only name given. Contributors apparently only have to give their name.
Sounds like another Wackipedia.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:12 PM

Perhaps you ought to apply a bit of rigour to your own research!

http://folkopedia.efdss.org/FolkopediaFolk quotes..


Folkopedia Director: John Adams
[
Technical Directors: Andrew Swaine & Doug Kingston

Category Editors

Paul Burgess - Traditional Music
Dr Vic Gammon Newcastle University - Traditional Song
Keith Chandler - Traditional Dance
Dr Eddie Cass Traditional Drama Research Group - Traditional Drama
Doc Rowe Traditional Customs
Dave Arthur Story Telling


Section Editors

Martin Graebe - Collectors:Baring-Gould
Irene Shettle - Collectors: Lucy Broadwood/John Broadwood
Elaine Bradtke - Dance: Molly
Sue Allan - Regions: Cumbria
Liam Robinson - Regions: Lincolnshire
Julia Say - Regions; Northumbria
Dave Eyre - All Categories; Books
Chris Coe - All Categories; Performance

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:34 PM

My mistake- the write-up itself doesn't yield the names or connections; that is in the column to the left.

Looks like it will be devoted to English material.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Derby Ram
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:38 PM

Game, set, match......Johnny Adams..YESSSSSSSSS!!!!!....:-))

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:44 PM

Yow'd Tup! It's not competition mate! :-)

Q

As with all wiki type ventures, you need to probe a bit. To be honest, I wasn't ready for it to be exposed to Mudcat evaluation just yet. it's taken 4 months to get the technical side sorted and the structural adjustments are ongoing. There are about 40 contributors recruited from specialist discussion groups and the intention was to slowly expand by word of mouth. Mo the caller bought attention to it a tad too soon- not to worry!

Yes, it starts with English and can expand to include things which are related.

J

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Tootler
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:46 PM

This looks like a properly thought through project with some pretty respectable names behind it.

Of course in the spirit of a Wiki, it is open to people to contribute and this helps keep it up to date. The price is that there are mistakes made, but overall this has the potential to be a pretty useful resource.

I don't think condemning it before it has had chance to get off the ground properly as has happened further up this thread is exactly helpful. Talk about seeing the glass as half empty!

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 05:56 PM

If you go to 'special pages' at the bottom right of the side bar and select 'user list' you can see who is registered to contribute. There are some VERY knowledgeable people listed there.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: GUEST,Robots For Tea
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:28 PM

It looks like it is the "traditional" interpretation of what folk actually is - or will it include stuff like: Incredible String Band, Sandy Denny, Richard Thompson, Donovan, Dylan, Roy Harper etc?

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:06 PM

I fear that no server in the world could handle the storage capacity needed for a

       singer/songwriteropedia... ;^)

But, it would sure help clarify things!
ttr

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 10:26 PM

I doubt if it will include the modern singer-songwriters 'Robot' mentions (good though they are; they certainly feature significantly in my own record collection), any more than it will include the Beatles, the Kinks, Nico or Edith Piaf. That isn't what it was set up for.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Mo the caller
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 03:32 AM

My impression was that it was based on the past. And Song and Dance, with tunes there only as servant of songs and dances.
I couldn't find anything about present practise - dance clubs, folk clubs, pub sessions, PTA dances etc. (What is folk? Ah, there's a topic!).

Malclm said "That isn't what it was set up for." Maybe he could expand this.

Good luck to it.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 05:07 AM

Mo the caller said:

My impression was that it was based on the past.

Yes. You start with what was and extend it into what is now - a bit like practising folk music in a modern society'.

And Song and Dance, with tunes there only as servant of songs and dances.

....... which is exactly what they are. Looking at the traditional repertoire there are hardly any folk tunes that didn't originate as a song or a dance. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single one. Others probably will but I'm too busy to be much interested in that as a discussion.


I couldn't find anything about present practise - dance clubs, folk clubs, pub sessions, PTA dances etc. (What is folk? Ah, there's a topic!).

It's not a directory. If you click on the word 'directory' in the side bar you'll see that it links to other directories. There are other moves towards a directory and personally I'm not much interested in directing a directory. (Boring).


Malclm said "That isn't what it was set up for." Maybe he could expand this.

Folkopedia is intended to provide an educational resource for schools, colleges, researchers, etc. who want to look at English traditional folk arts and how they relate to other folk arts that have the same roots. It can be used to draw together links to resources and information elsewhere on the web. It can be used to re-evaluate misleading information by the use of peer review. It can be used as a repository for information that is not available anywhere else. Who knows how else it might evolve.

Good luck to it.

Thanks. Luck often comes to those who put in the hard work. Some of us have been working on this for a number of months, installing and optimising the software, recruiting the senior editors, discussing the policies for content, navigation, conventions, etc. It's not perfect yet and will take further months/years to refine.

When you (Mo) announced Folkopedia's existence to Mudcat, I must admit that my heart hit my boots as I thought "here we go - now we're going to get the people saying this or that is missing - it's a crap idea," etc. etc. And it happened! Q, whoever he or she is, immediately described it as 'Wackopedia' without even giving it the benefit of an inspection. I don't yet know if it's a good and workable idea but I've put the effort in, done it and the (small but perfectly formed and expanding) team are giving it their best attention.

Of course there's not that much in it yet but we don't get born as adults. We get born as babies and grow. We grow fast if people feed us. We grow well if people don't feed us junk.


Folkopedia is open! It has adopted the Citizendium approach and applied it to English folk music. It welcomes people with genuine expertise and an open heart who want to share real knowledge with the people who are open to learning it.

Anonymous commentators won't find it open.

I guess I'll be too busy to contribute any more to this thread. These projects don't run themselves!

Johnny Adams
Director: Folkopedia

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Surreysinger
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 05:48 AM

"the (small but perfectly formed and expanding) team"

Oi .... fighting talk there Mr Adams ... I'm on a diet at the moment, and expanding is something I don't wish to be accused of!!
..... mind you, hmmmm, perfectly formed???

Sorry - actually a serious, but IMHO a rather exciting subject and project. It'll be interesting to watch the baby grow.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: GUEST,Robots For Tea
Date: 11 Apr 07 - 09:30 AM

Sorry not my cup of tea - This type of "folk" is dead and should stay that way!

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 02:44 AM

Robot - why don't you learn what you are talking about before shooting your mouth off. What you may prefer may (or may not, depending on your taste) be excellent, but it is not "folk".

It sounds to me as if what folkopedia is doing is quite simply exactly right - starting from the core of "folk" as defined by the academics and thereafter expanding to address the various other materials that are contiguous to "folk", and jurisdictions other than the host jurisdiction.

Adams, well said. It would be nice to see some attention to harmony as well as melody, and I would dearly love to see a resource with suggested melodies (preferably in a form I can play on the computer) for all of the Child ballads.   They would not have to be "folk" melodies but should by sympathetic in style (compare the Lykewake dirge, not a Child of course, but trad words with a C19th melody that sounds traditional)

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 04:05 AM

What a great project! The mind reels with the possibilities, but Johnny is right, let's start with the history, what's known, and spread outwards over time. My own knowledge is pitifully small but I will be an avid user.

Johnny, perhaps in days to come you will consider setting out two specialist song sections, if you feel it appropriate: One for shanties, and one for hunting songs. The first of those should also give an early "hook" for links with other cultures, as so many were copied by/from America, the Carribean, the Netherlands etc. And when (years from now) the catchment era spreads to the 20th century, my vote goes first to songs of Tyneside and the North East of England generally - there's gold in them thar songs.

But a brilliant idea already. I suggest that lecturers at the folk courses are encouraged to contribute; and the dissertations of the students should also be considered for inclusion.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:24 AM

Richard Bridge wrote: 2 Apr 07 - 02:44 AM

Adams, well said. It would be nice to see some attention to harmony as well as melody, and I would dearly love to see a resource with suggested melodies (preferably in a form I can play on the computer) for all of the Child ballads.   They would not have to be "folk" melodies but should by sympathetic in style (compare the Lykewake dirge, not a Child of course, but trad words with a C19th melody that sounds traditional)

Thanks. I'll factor harmony into the scheme. As far as melodies AND harmonies go, we've allowed midi files to be uploaded and they can be linked to the song or tune pages.

See Behold what grace appears    for a working test example.
There is a midi file at the bottom of the page.

Your suggestion about Child sounds like a nice 'little' project for somebody.

J

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:33 AM

George Papavgeris wrote:

Johnny, perhaps in days to come you will consider setting out two specialist song sections, if you feel it appropriate: One for shanties, and one for hunting songs. The first of those should also give an early "hook" for links with other cultures, as so many were copied by/from America, the Carribean, the Netherlands etc. And when (years from now) the catchment era spreads to the 20th century, my vote goes first to songs of Tyneside and the North East of England generally - there's gold in them thar songs.

George, that's already factored in. If you look at the contents list at http://folkopedia.efdss.org/Song you'll see sections for Hunting and Poaching songs and Sea Songs, categories derived by Pete Wood from, I think, Peter Kennedy's book. The categories are there awaiting input.

But a brilliant idea already. I suggest that lecturers at the folk courses are encouraged to contribute; and the dissertations of the students should also be considered for inclusion.

Vic Gammon, who is the Senior Category Editor for Song, has already offered to include Folkopedia contribution as an assessed element on one of the modules on the Folk Music degree at Newcastle University.

Regards, J

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:37 AM

SurreySinger

I was not making any comments about the possibility of your expanding waistline but I must wonder if there were any packets of biscuits next to your computer in the early hours of this morning, when you were contributing to Folkopedia?

:-)

J

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 05:44 AM

Fool me - you're right, John, I missed the contents list! Great news about Vic's idea too. The site is in my "favourites" now...

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:04 AM

Hmmm... two questions, one relatively trivial and one relatively serious:

1. Why Folk-O-pedia? Obviously deriving from encycl-O-pedia, but in recognition of the role of the wiki software, most similar wikipedia derivations keep the I of wikipedia, i.e. Folk-I-pedia. It seems almost disrespectful to authors and contributors of the enabling software to ignore this unwritten tradition.

2. Why is it necessary to have a separate folkipedia (sic)? I'm sure there ARE good reasons, but on the face of it, it's hard to see why all this new material specifically covering "Traditional Folk Arts in England and beyond" cannot simply be added into the main Wikipedia structure as for example Breton music and many other types of folk music have already. Is it not divisive to cut this particular branch of folk music from the main structure, and does it not weaken one of the main strengths of Wikipedia, namely to enable all the cross referencing etc which is such a powerful feature of Wikipedia?

Mally
aka Guitar Mal

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:22 AM

Mally wrote:

Hmmm... two questions, one relatively trivial and one relatively serious:

1. Why Folk-O-pedia? Obviously deriving from encycl-O-pedia, but in recognition of the role of the wiki software, most similar wikipedia derivations keep the I of wikipedia, i.e. Folk-I-pedia. It seems almost disrespectful to authors and contributors of the enabling software to ignore this unwritten tradition.

The name was debated extensively in other places. Whatever the rights and wrongs, that's what we've ended up with and it's more important to do the job rather than worry about unwritten traditions.

2. Why is it necessary to have a separate folkipedia (sic)? I'm sure there ARE good reasons, but on the face of it, it's hard to see why all this new material specifically covering "Traditional Folk Arts in England and beyond" cannot simply be added into the main Wikipedia structure as for example Breton music and many other types of folk music have already. Is it not divisive to cut this particular branch of folk music from the main structure, and does it not weaken one of the main strengths of Wikipedia, namely to enable all the cross referencing etc which is such a powerful feature of Wikipedia?


See the comment further up about "More junk lacking peer review and references."

See also http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Main_Page for the model.

With respect, we've had the debates and set a course - we want to spend the energy following it, not debating it again.

Best regards,

J

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:24 AM

Can't answer for the first point, Guest, though it doesn't bother me too much. Perhaps John can respond. But for the second point, surely a link and summary can be inserted into Wikipedia anyway, so Folkopedia needn't be "cut off". And in this way one can avoid overburdening Wikipedia with too many layers to drill down through, and make it easier and more memorable to pass the main link to those interested.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Surreysinger
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:26 AM

"I must wonder if there were any packets of biscuits next to your computer in the early hours of this morning"
It would have been nice, but no.... no biscuits in the house!!! :-(

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: GUEST,Guitar Mal
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:39 AM

John

Like I said, I'm sure there ARE reasons, so it's not really a question of whether you respect my naive questions or not, merely whether you're communicating what folkOpedia is all about to your visitors etc. I think it would be a GREAT idea to put this information on the main page because I'm sure I won't be the only one asking or thinking it, and likewise the reference to the Citizendium thing if that is an important element.

The name, as I said,is relatively trivial.

Mally

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: GUEST,Guitar Mal
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 06:56 AM

I have to add, that when I was looking through the Breton section of Wikipedia just yesterday, I didn't notice any "junk", just plenty of apparently well-written, relatively comprehensive, interesting and useful information, well supported by active contributors and with plenty of references (what sort of references are you referring to here anyway? Does traditional folk music require academic standards of reference?), plus of course very many links, both internal and external.

My immediate thought about this is that the Wikipedia model does not appear to be broken, so why fix it? Apparently the model can be improved, and I am sure there are some topic areas open to abuse, but is traditional folk music one of these. Is it really worth dividing what is already a coherent and comprehensive user-driven enclopedia simply because it can be 'improved'. Are peer review and real names (why???) that important that it is necessary to establish a different system?

No need to answer all that because as you say you've had the debates and while I've no time to find or study them, I'm sure anyone interested will be able to do so. No point repeating them here, but perhaps links to the 'raison d'etre' discussions could also be added to the main page?

Mally

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: johnadams
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 07:45 AM

Mally wrote:

I have to add, that when I was looking through the Breton section of Wikipedia just yesterday, I didn't notice any "junk", just plenty of apparently well-written, relatively comprehensive, interesting and useful information, well supported by active contributors and with plenty of references (what sort of references are you referring to here anyway? Does traditional folk music require academic standards of reference?), plus of course very many links, both internal and external.

My immediate thought about this is that the Wikipedia model does not appear to be broken, so why fix it? Apparently the model can be improved, and I am sure there are some topic areas open to abuse, but is traditional folk music one of these. Is it really worth dividing what is already a coherent and comprehensive user-driven enclopedia simply because it can be 'improved'. Are peer review and real names (why???) that important that it is necessary to establish a different system?

I agree that there is lots of good info on Wikipedia, but my university still doesn't allow it to be referenced in academic work. If Folkopedia is to be used in education as intended and cited in essays, etc., it needs to be taken with some measure of guarantee as to its accuracy. This also extends to the identification of the contributors. If a teacher checks an entry on Wikipedia and finds it to have been submitted by 'FolkieFred' or 'KuddlyKate', knowledgeable though Fred and Kate may be, it doesn't inspire the sort of confidence to allow access and citing by students with lesser discriminatory skills. Therefore, Wikipedia doesn't meet the standard.

That said, contributors to Folkopedia can draw attention to Wikipedia entries and qualify them from within Folkopedia. Conversely, they can link from Wikipedia to corrected, qualified or enhanced content (or comment) in Folkopedia.

Your other constructive comments are welcome, but as I said above, I didn't intend this level of public debate this early in Folkopedia's life. The cat came out of the bag before I was ready and I have limited time each day to devote to refining the project. The proper job gets in the way.

Regards,

J

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Apr 07 - 09:48 AM

Neither of the universities I teach at approve Wikipedia as an academic authority, although it may be referred to.

Subject: RE: Folkopedia
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 08 Mar 21 - 05:10 PM

Folkopedia is now at

https://folkopedia.info