What is the reason for the wiki?

I have been wondering for a while, what's the reason for having a wiki inside YC.

To begin with, I've never had the need to look for an article in the YC wiki, and I've never read any articles (apart from just a few moments ago, to see what it actually looks like - unfortunately less impressive than I expected), since if I want to look something up I go to wikipedia.

Then, looking at the articles, I see that there are many articles that would belong to an un-wiki (like uncyclopedia), such as the A Treatise on Music one.

Also, most of the articles could either be integrated with the respective wikipedia articles (such as Improvisation , although all the references to the first person should be eliminated to make the content as close to a wiki article as possible), and articles such as Things to look for while composing would be better off as entries in wikibooks (besides, there's something similar in the Lessons and Masterclasses forums, isn't there?)

The reason I don't particularly support the wiki is that a) if there is worthy knowledge within those articles, it is contained within the limits of the YC visitors, and not even that since I, among others, have never visited the wiki, and b) other people will have the chance to add or correct things in the articles if they are put outside YC. Plus, there is a lack of standards among the articles - other articles are written totally in the first person, others are sarcastic, others are serious, others are merely opinions. The analyses of the pieces could be a wikibook on its own, and a link to that wikibook can be placed in the respective article in wikipedia.

So, why do you (everyone who supports the wiki) think we should have a YC wiki? :X

I don't support the Wiki either. Seems like a waste of space plus it's hard for people to actually know where it the wiki is lol.

Since the Admins feel that it's part of the sites, I definitely think the Standards should increase. More of an Academic writing style and less of an informal assault. Plus, it seems kind of pointless to write information that is on Wikipedia on here.

If our YC wiki is going to have any benefit, I think it should be more relevant to YC. For example, articles about major works, articles of successful composers who came from YC, award winning YC works, etc etc etc.

Yeah, that suggestion makes much more sense. Like, if someone wants to write a commentary on a piece he or someone else wrote, then yes, I understand that.

As Juji said, if I need to look some info concerning music theory; my first stop will naturally be wikipedia. I have also noticed that YC's wiki is terribly unorganized, I find that highly annoying. We have editors no? Why can't they structure it up a bit.

As I said before, YC's wiki needs templates and guidlines.

For something to improve there must be a certain amount of underlying structure. Just look at languages, you need to know grammar in order to speak the language well. YC's wiki is an attempt to speak a language with an un-satisfactorial amount of knowledge in grammar.

Touche from Saiming :P

:laugh: well more like a supporting statement :P

*In defense of the wiki...*

Actually- bloody good points. If any of you come across things you don't like about articles - spelling mistakes, too informal, wrong tense, etc - please create a talk page (click discussion) and mention it! We can't improve it if we don't have any help :P

I have never understood the talk page discussion, and I personally find it pretty ineffective . Although I am not an Editor meaning I do not know if the talk function works well.

Well, it creates a thread in which to discuss the content of the article, and to suggest improvements, and discuss before making major changes. I think the system works pretty well, unfortunately, it's just not used that much.

The wiki is an attempt to build information beyond the forum. Although it is nowhere near as organized as wikipedia, YC is not copying content from wikipedia (at least that I am aware of), thus creating value/opinions strictly from musicians and composers. There is no better source of music information, than from the source itself (our experiences as musicians!) and wikipedia editors can only offer external links as a source, not their brains (unless they happen to be a musician of course). I also feel that if someone has a music theory question and wants to research information, why have that visitor leave this site for wikipedia? Our goal is to retain our guests/visitors and users by having all information located in one source!

That is my whole idea/reasoning about trying to keep and maintain the wiki.

As far as I can recall, the wiki began life as a profile creation system. To this end, it has been quite successful in that 139 people (to date) have taken it upon themselves to use it in this capacity.

However, following this innovation, matters sort of spilled out into article writing. I honestly can't remember how or why. This hasn't worked out quite so well: for starters, finding people who want to write articles is tricky at best. Then you have the issue of similar information being better presented elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia). Then you also need to consider that none of our articles are properly cited (as far as I'm aware), so unless the author is assumed to possess some kind of authority on that which they are writing about, the reader is well advised to take the content with a large pinch of salt.

Another important consideration - and I realise this may only constitute my opinion - is the user-friendliness of MediaWiki, or lack thereof. If you're dead set on having users generate content, it's best to streamline the process as far as possible. MediaWiki is a little difficult to get to grips with for the average user (even I as a programmer was a tad befuzzled at first).

Of course, a major function of the wiki is handling the site's front page. That will change once the new software is introduced, making way for a hybrid of dynamic content hailing from all aspects of the site. As for what will become of the wiki then, only time will tell.

It is funny how Mike and I never see eye to eye, but that's what makes it fun.

or starters, finding people who want to write articles is tricky at best.

Unless we provide some kind of incentive.

Then you also need to consider that none of our articles are properly cited (as far as I'm aware), so unless the author is assumed to possess some kind of authority on that which they are writing about, the reader is well advised to take the content with a large pinch of salt.

The same thing can also be said about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly not an authoritative site. Although there are tons of information, an external link to a source is not considered authoritative, unless it comes from a well known source such as a .gov or .edu. However, I would place my bets that music information coming from YC is to be much more trusted the Wikipedia, in time. After all, we host a niche that wikipedia cannot compete against.

Another important consideration - and I realise this may only constitute my opinion - is the user-friendliness of MediaWiki, or lack thereof. If you're dead set on having users generate content, it's best to streamline the process as far as possible. MediaWiki is a little difficult to get to grips with for the average user (even I as a programmer was a tad befuzzled at first).

I agree with Mike here, although the software is awesome, and very search engine friendly! I think if/as the site grows, and we provide incentives for editors, we can have some more success with this aspect of the site.

Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, relies on its references to ensure authenticity. The practices themselves of referencing, neutral point of view, adhering to various guidelines etc. do give it authority as an encyclopedia, but not as an organisation which puts out original research.

Since most (if not all - I haven't actually checked this, so anyone is free to contradict me) of our articles do not provide citations for their assertions, the reader needs to place stock in the author's credentials. For example, I personally don't need to read Michel's article entitled Things to look for while composing in a particularly critical manner, because I respect his expertise and opinion. The same cannot be said of various other articles on the system. On the other hand, in the case of Grove, for example, I can trust its authority simply on the basis that it's Grove. Music-related articles on Wikipedia frequently cite Grove as a source.

YC doesn't carry much weight as a musical authority...yet. Were we to acquire a few more article-minded people, and devise some very strict guidelines on how articles should be written, this could change.

Were we to acquire a few more article-minded people, and devise some very strict guidelines on how articles should be written, this could change.

Certainly, and this is the key! I didn't say we are authoritative, but in the long run, I feel we will provide much more accurate and reliable music information than Wikipedia for sure. Although, I still don't agree with your assessment, about Wikipedia being authoritative :P Ask yourself this question: Would you really trust medical diagnostic information on Wikipedia over a doctor's diagnosis?

Would you really trust medical diagnostic information on Wikipedia over a doctor's diagnosis?

If you're asking me whether I'd entrust my medical well-being (or even my life) to Wikipedia, then the answer is obviously no. :P

If, however, you were to ask me whether the material on Wikipedia is generally reliable and of good quality, I would have to say yes. There has been at least one study done which concluded that it's as factually accurate as a "real", commercial encyclopedia.

I normally look at footnotes on Wikipedia anyway, both to find out more on points that grab my interest and to fact check.

Would you really trust medical diagnostic information on Wikipedia over a doctor's diagnosis?

All I can say is, when doing a research, use Wikipedia for your content, however, use their resources and external links as your bibliography, otherwise you will get a 0 from your professor! Professors HATE Wikipedia, and do not want that website as a reference, at all costs!

chopin:I also feel that if someone has a music theory question and wants to research information, why have that visitor leave this site for wikipedia?

Because wikipedia is much more valid than the YC articles, exactly because of the authenticity control and measures that wikipedia takes. And also, the amount of professional composers is likely to be higher in wikipedia than YC, so the quality of the articles should be better (and it is also sourced, with references to many other articles and books).

chopin: All I can say is, when doing a research, use Wikipedia for your content, however, use their resources and external links as your bibliography, otherwise you will get a 0 from your professor! Professors HATE Wikipedia, and do not want that website as a reference, at all costs!

Well, yes, but imagine how much professors would hate it if we used YC articles to learn things, which are *not* even based on wikipedia articles :P

I don't understand the wiki. Nor know what a wiki is.

Haven't you ever used wikipedia? :X

Ooo ok.

:)

I feel really stupid now.

And by the way... I also think it is nice that our Wiki doesn't HAVE to be as strict as Wikipedia. There are not many places on the web that are good resources for budding composers - even Wikipedia is of little or no help. Take, for instance, the instrument articles we have cropping up here on YC. So far I'd say I've put the majority of information in there myself and I try to keep the information relevant to the composer - such as the characteristics, uses, and practical technique of the instrument, I.E. what is acceptable to put in standard literature - opinions on what can and cannot be done. Wikipedia does not cover this kind of information (nor permit some of it), and to find it elsewhere on the web would probably span several sites to find all the needed information. Instead, here, hopefully we can all pitch in what we know and collaborate to make this into an indispensable resource for composers and orchestrators/arrangers. I know we don't offer this yet, I think it is worth a try.

Just my second set of 2

And why do we have orchestration books for, then? The Rimsky-Korsakov one is available for free online, and it should contain all the information about the instruments you mentioned.

Also: Clarinet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me something about the clarinet that you can't find in there.

My feelings on Wikipedia:

And by the way... I also think it is nice that our Wiki doesn't HAVE to be as strict as Wikipedia. There are not many places on the web that are good resources for budding composers - even Wikipedia is of little or no help. Take, for instance, the instrument articles we have cropping up here on YC. So far I'd say I've put the majority of information in there myself and I try to keep the information relevant to the composer - such as the characteristics, uses, and practical technique of the instrument, I.E. what is acceptable to put in standard literature - opinions on what can and cannot be done. Wikipedia does not cover this kind of information (nor permit some of it), and to find it elsewhere on the web would probably span several sites to find all the needed information. Instead, here, hopefully we can all pitch in what we know and collaborate to make this into an indispensable resource for composers and orchestrators/arrangers. I know we don't offer this yet, I think it is worth a try.

Just my second set of 2