] [Thread Prev
Re: wikipedia page on livelooping
On 26/03/2014 15:38, Matthias Grob wrote:
I just read all of this thread, rather quickly, and here some thougths
I do not remember having contributed to the wikipedia page for livelooping
Its easy to loop up the old versions in the history tab
Had assumed that "matigrob" was you.
...er...it was wasn't it.
Anyway, there you are in the history.
iirc you added mostly lists of links
I did contribute the real story about the Echoplex page and the removed it
since I did not have references
It made me understand the absurd situation. someone who tells his own
experience does not have a reference to it
so someone wouldhave to inteview that person, write an article somewhere
and then reference to that in wikipedia, right?
That's it, but really *someone else* would do the reference from wikipedia.
Wikipedia actually prefers a "secondary reference".
1)inteview that person,
2) write an article somewhere
3) someone else writes an article that references the first
4)reference to that 2nd article in wikipedia
Then the person writing the article should write it from
"a neutral point of view".
i.e. they'd have to write a summary of the available viewpoints available
on the subject and then compare and contrast.
( in practise it's far to easy to adopt that *style* without being nuetral
at all )
Beyond that there is the wikipedia idea of "notability",
...is it important enough.
They say this can be established with secondary references.
I am not sure whether Livelooping.org or youtube/livelooping are valid
yes we have scientific articles,
not scientific, but academic.
It's hard to work out what is a valid reference.
an undergraduate paper?
a kid interviewed in a local paper?
unfortunately the best I know is written in german, by Frederike Holste
bits could be referenced with English translation.
its not so dificult to fix that situation: one of you guys who writes well
english and is not involved (or whatever the rules are)
actually a lot of WP is done by cheating
Some musician puts up their blog, then has what look like references going
to thier youtube vids.
When it gets difficult is when the page becomes disputed,
then the WP rules become important.
Either way the WP format needs to be used.
since the main members of the movement after 20 years still discuss
whether there is a livelooping artform of music, maybe we do not deserve
any pages anywhere.
if it's been discussed for 20 years then it ought to be 'notable'!
but I hear a lot of music that would never have developped without a
So does anyone who listens.