Topic: Weeniepedia?

[Cooljack]

This website is most likely the greatest source of knolledge and opinion I've seen in regards to alot of pre-war music and the likes. I was just wondering whether there had been any consideration put into getting a community wiki? I just thought it would be a good method of catogorizing lyrics, artists and other bits of information which are all over this site & forums. Wikipedia can be used to some extent though I've noticed it is far to lacking and in cases gives bad/poor information. I made an epic revamp of the barbecue bob page not long ago (which would be good for someone to check over if they have time) and there are times when I've seen things which are just plain stupid. What do others think of this?

[Rivers]

Hi Cooljack,

At the clear risk of telling you more than you wanted to know (as Slack would say)... The founding weenies did discuss this a few years back and decided at the time not to go there. Reasons were as I recall that it would be duplication of effort. For example Stefan Wirz has a wonderful resource already built, and at that time there seemed to be new resources coming on line all the time.

Having said that after a gap of a few years I'm hard pressed to think of any site other than Stefan's that is complimentary to this one. The promise of 'living' country blues resource websites springing up like mushrooms just plain hasn't happened, and there is a lot of half baked, media-distorted info out there.

During the earlier discussions, I think it was just after Slack moved us to this website, I was the lone voice saying we should integrate a wiki and slowly start building it up. So I for one support your idea. It would be a lot better repository for lyrics and instruction, reviews and so on, than the current content manager Joomla, which is such a bear to use that we can't really turn it over to the weenies to add content due to the training and QC issues, and general scope for screw ups.

A wiki, on the other hand, is designed for consistency, control of publishing and collaboration. I think you are right, but the style here is a 'democracy w/steering committee' so thanks for raising the subject for discussion. I hope people will look at it seriously but don't be too disappointed if the consensus is to not go that way. There are pros and cons.

[uncle bud]

You do have to love the name... 

[frankie]

Just thinking out loud (always a risk) - why not get together a group of interested weenies & make a concerted effort to update wikipedia?  That way you don't have to manage the technical stuff and you're leveraging an existing (if flawed) repository.

[Slack]

I tend to agree with Frankie's out loud thinking.  It seems to make more sense to me to make entries into Wikipedia as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel or to duplicate the effort it takes to technically run the thing -- these kinds of things are time consuming enough.  But then, I haven't explored Wiki software that much - maybe it is possible to have a Wiki that is a sub-set of the Wikipedia, e.g. work on it locally and have it mirrored to the Wikipedia big boys, who knows (just more thinking out). In any case...

If the main problem(only problem?) with Wikipedia is that the information is just plain wrong or stupid - that would be pretty easy for Weenies to fix.  It might be fun/informative for a group of interested weenies to work on various Weeniepedia projects(love the name too).  It would also benefit the site in that the group could of course put links back to the weeniecampbell.com site. 

If folks are interested in forming a group whose purpose is to eliminate bad info in Wikipedia as it relates to country blues - I would imagine this site would certainly help facilitate that goal.... maybe the SC would be willing to put up a separate Weeniepedia board or something...

[uncle bud]

There are several knowledgeable people working on some of the prewar blues entries in Wikipedia, as far as I recall. Some PWB members. One other thing about Wikipedia, however, is one must contend with multiple and sometimes quite divergent opinions. The history of Blues history seems rife with people bitching at each other.

[Rivers]

There would have to be editorial control, it could not be a free for all. Somebody must be on top of grammer, spelling and half crazed unattributable theories.

I think the argument that other people are doing it is the one that headed off the idea last time. I'm still waiting!  These projects tend to die without notice. One thing I'm sure of, we are capable of doing a better job than most, for several reasons. We have the skills, knowledge, breadth of membership, continuity and affiliations. I suspect our operating model is, by sheer fluke admittedly, better than anything else happening in this sphere on the web. If you disagree, tell me where?

I say "who cares what other people are doing, or trying to do. Let's do it ourselves, and / or do it better".

Attempting to ever straighten out wikipedia would be like painting the Brooklyn Bridge. The model is fundamentally flawed, no one is accountable and there's insufficient management. Too many nut jobs and ax-grinders. Doesn't work for me, I don't really care anymore what wikipedia 'thinks' about anything really.

[Stefan Wirz]

... at wikipedia be prepared to have a lot of 'notability' discussions with people having not the slightest idea of what they're discussing about - I've had a few (but am still pottering about) ...
Stefan

[waxwing]

But we would have to contend with those same divergent views here, as well, eh? The hierarchy at wikipedia is mind boggling, boards to discuss edits, boards to discuss disputes, banning posters. I think we would run out of steam before we really got anywhere. And personally, I think the Tags do more to present the info as a discussion, allowing the reader the view that this or that poster has more on the ball than some others, whereas a wiki presents the info as fact, no matter who last edited it.

All for now.
John C.

[Rivers]

Wax, wiki software is open source, GNU license (I think). I'm advocating we run independently of the wikipedia b/s, and on our server . Don't confuse 'Wikipedia', the site, with 'a wiki'. Anyone can start their own wiki, and manage it their own way. The style of management would be up to us. I haven't investigated integrating locally-stored wiki content with Wikipedia, should one wish to. I don't really see the point but hey. To update wikipedia assumes you have faith in wikipedia, which I certainly do not, though it's good for a quick lookup taken with a pinch of salt.

Weeniepedia, love it.

[Rivers]

This subject area is huge, and one entire Wiki could handle it. My gut feeling, as a database guy from way back, is that making country blues (or whatever) a sub-sub topic in what purports or aspires to be a universal encyclopedia would always be unsatisfactory at best.

The other problem I see with wikipedia is such a large collection needs to be run by people who are actually invested in the topic, and who either know the answer or can quickly find out. We've had our share of newbies in the past who have tried to put one over on the assorted weenies. They generally get straightened out nicely and hang in there, or they go elsewhere.

I have no interest in fighting ongoing running battles with waves of anonymous individuals on the internet about what is fact and what is opinion. At the same time I'm a strong advocate of stimulating more collaboration around here, and believe we are quite capable of managing it well without pissing too many people off. We just need the right tool. And a plan.

[uncle bud]

There would have to be editorial control, it could not be a free for all. Somebody must be on top of grammer

And grammar, too. 

[Rivers]

Zounds! Did I do that? 

[Slack]

I keeping my mouth shut - except for a hearty guffaw! 

(no breaks around this place )

[boots]

I feel a little guilty joining in this one; as I'm a listener only and would not be contributing.

However that said there does seem quite a bit of mileage in Rivers idea. Assuming a wiki can be started on Weenie (Weeniepedia - also gets my vote) I feel it should work well as the membership are not hostile and will resolve any disputes easily.

Nuff said.