Wiki "Thereminist" article draft

Well, I've found it on Google Books, and I'm doing some more re-writing today.

You'd be surprised by how simple it can be to write such an article, when there's [i]no orginal research involved.[/i] What you're thinking of is someone qualified to write a book, or extensive article, based on their own research. That's not the same as a Wiki article. For example, I just wrote the following addition for the "Instrumentalists: 1920 to 1960" section, based on info from that book:

"Konstantin Kovalsky, a conservatory trained violinist with a hand injury that prevented his playing the violin, was likely the next actual thereminist in history. Kovalsky built his own variation of Theremin's design, with an additional foot pedal and buttons to control volume. He performed over three thousand concerts, many with Lev Theremin, around the USSR over the following fifty years."



Now, I assume that the Glinsky's information is accurate, but it doesn't really matter to Wiki - it's in a [i]published book[/i].

So I just reported what I read in my own words. Why do I need to [i]personally[/i] be a well-researched expert on the subject to do that?

[i]"So I just reported what I read in my own words. Why do I need to personally be a well-researched expert on the subject to do that?" - Joe [/i]

Because a "well-researched expert" sees the 'big picture' and also the minute details.. a "well-researched expert" can get balance - knows the importance of events / details, can place these correctly in context, and is not unaware of any aspect of the subject he/she is an expert on..

Sure - you could effectively 'cut and paste' marginally modified snippets from expert sources.. having paint and a canvass and a photo of some great work of art will not enable you to re-create that work of art, or produce an original based on or inspired by that work of art, unless you are an artist.

Quite honestly, I think the Wiki page, on matters like this, would be better just being a page of links to relevant sites where the matters are discussed.. That way the illusion (desception?) that what is written on Wiki was in any way comprehensive or acurate would be dispelled.. People generally realise that what is placed on web sites cannot be taken as 'gospel'.. But many people regard Wiki as having authority or 'encyclopedia' status.

Wiki deserves absolutely no more respect than any other website or web forum - it has as much bullsh*t and bias as any other website may have, and is compiled mainly by people who are not in any way qualified to contribute to an encyclopedia.

If there was no Theremin entry in Wiki, search engines would return other, better sources of information on the subject of Theremins.. Alas, when Wiki pops up in a list of results from a search, people (particularly school kids and lazy people) access this first, gobble it down as fact, and do not look at other - possibly more accurate - URL's on the matter.

There are lots of good entries on Wiki.. It is a usefull source of information - But ONLY of regarded as A source of information, not THE source of information.. And ONLY if people are aware that what is written on a Wiki page could be inacurate or even complete bulls*it.

Want to improve Wiki? -- Have a banner which pops up on every page and boldly declares "Everything you read here could be Bullsh*t ! "

Fred, everything is potentially BS, and not to be taken as gospel without confirmation. Wikipedia is no different. Serious researchers understand this and consider the reliability of the source.

Is it necessary to remind us that wikipedia is not a reliable research tool quite so often while Joe is trying his darndest to make it a little bit better?

[i]"Is it necessary to remind us that wikipedia is not a reliable research tool quite so often while Joe is trying his darndest to make it a little bit better?"[/i]

Yeah .. you are right.. I think there are degrees of BS, but I am probably only attracted to this topic because its shit..

Sorry Joe.

No worries, Fred. And thank you for the support, Gordon.

Anyway, I've ordered the book from Amazon, and I'll continue to work on the article with information from it.

Here's the thing, Fred: [i]someone[/i] is going to write the article - in fact someone already did, and I gather that it's less than desirable in its current form. At least I'm here on TW, asking the regulars for their advice and suggestions, instead of just composing the thing on my own and putting it up. Which of course I could do, but I want to do a better job than that.

The problem with simply having a page of links (something Wikipedia doesn't allow anyway) is there's no assurance that what's at those links is going to be any better than a Wiki page anyway, and with a "private" website, there's no way for anyone else to challenge it or change it. Google only goes by popularity, so if the site with the most bullshit is also the site that's most popular, well, there we are. At least with a Wiki page there is [i]recourse[/i] of some kind to make it more accurate.

Joe Max wrote:

I'm a "noob", but that itself makes me a less biased observer..

**********************

I'm not trying to start big thing here, but I just don't see the logic in someone's claiming that their ignorance of a subject on which they are writing is somehow a PLUS.

"I may not know what I'm talking about, but at least I haven't formed any personal opinions, judgments or prejudices in regard to the subject."

Hello.........

Joe, no matter what anyone says or thinks, you're going to write the article you want to write - just as your Wiki predecessors did - so by all means GO AHEAD.

I suppose if I really gave a damn about what the Wikipedia THEREMIN article said, I'd take a crack at writing it myself.

Gordon wrote to FredM:

Is it necessary to remind us that wikipedia is not a reliable research tool quite so often while Joe is trying his darndest to make it a little bit better?

************************

Come, come now, Gordon!!

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Joe, bless his heart, is admitting that he is a "noob" and although he is both sincere and very gung-ho, knows little or nothing about the subject on which he is writing. He has not read, nor does he even own a copy of Glinsky's book - the only work every published on the life and work of Leon Theremin and the history of the development of the instrument that bears his name.

Surprise! This is the very reason why so much information on Wikipedia is unreliable. The articles are often written by well-meaning people whose enthusiasm surpasses their expertise.

Curiously, Joe suggest that his ignorance is a plus because he has not acquired any of the prejudices of the so-called theremin "experts" and long-time aficionados. Ironically, however, it is from these very experts and aficionados that he is gleaning his information, so he is presumably passing on the prejudices of those over whom he feels he has the advantage of impartiality!

Odd.

On the other hand, this is THE THEREMIN we're talking about! Nothing should surprise any of us.

Gordon, I agree that everyone should be encouraged, and you are to be applauded for your important role as theremin organizer, promoter and all round cheerleader, but I don't think it behooves any of us to stick our heads in the sand and say nothing just so we can appear to be Mr. Niceguy.

Sorry, I don't mean this to sound mean or aggressive, but I do think the people in this forum should be encouraged to say exactly what they think, even if it ruffles some feathers. This should apply particularly to a project like the Wikipedia article in which many of us are are going to be mentioned by name.

Peter. I did not say these things should not be said.

I merely note that they get said repeatedly. It is disruptive.

Having told Joe "by all means, go ahead" should you now point out - again - what a waste of time you consider his endeavour to be, and why? Or are you going to offer suggestions and constructive thoughts, as he has enabled you to do by making this a public endeavour? Or are you going to sit back and leave him to get on with it, content that you have voiced your opinion.

I do not intend to repeat this. I have disrupted the thread too much already myself trying to keep it focussed.

[i]"Sorry, I don't mean this to sound mean or aggressive..."[/i]

Which is what people always say while they're being mean and aggressive.

What I bring to the project, coalport, is experience writing and editing Wiki articles in general. From my POV, the problem with the current "Theremin" article is not limited to the raw data in it, it's that it has a woeful lack of proper citation, it's haphazardly constructed, it drifts away from the actual subject, and it's too damn long. It's not just a bad Wiki article on the Theremin, it's a bad Wiki article, period.

That is why I think I can help make it better.

I know how Wiki works, what the limits and guidelines are, how to get an article to survive being summarily deleted by administrators, and how to develop a consensus among editors.

Here's some examples of my work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trixon_Drums
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Farr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trashman_%28comics%29

I wrote those three articles from scratch - I was the original composer.

These are articles in which I was a major editor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogun_Assassin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evey_Hammond
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanging

So I'm sure you can beat me out in a theremin duel, coalport, but I'll wager my experience working with Wikipedia far exceeds yours. My articles are far from perfect, but they have survived being cut by the admins.

So far, Thierry and Gordon are the only ones who have offered any actual help or encouragement. (And Thomas, of course, who put me on to this in the first place.) And it only took them a few short sentences to do it, compared to the voluminous screeds written to declare that it's a stupid thing for me to try to do.

I'd certainly like to include folks here at TW in the "Thereminsts" article. Anyone who has been mentioned in a book, magazine, journal or newspaper by a major publisher on the subject, has a recording released by a major record company, or has appeared/recorded in the soundtrack of a major motion picture, please post or forward me the information.

Remember, self-published books, records or videos are not acceptable citations under Wikipedia guidelines. Web references are almost always likewise unacceptable, unless the website is produced by an entity affiliated with a major media outlet (for example, the web pages of the Times of London or CNN.)

Ultimately, I will be removing from the final article all entries that can't be verified according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Please check the article at the link below periodically to view the latest updates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JMax555/Sandbox_2