[sdiy] Wikipedia as synth resource

[Simon Gatrall]

At 5:51 PM +0200 5/1/04, Magnus Danielson wrote:
>From: "john mahoney" <jmahoney at gate.net>
>Subject: [sdiy] Wikipedia as synth resource
>Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 11:27:50 -0400
>Message-ID: <0b7401c42f90$dd48d330$6400a8c0 at BABYUTEST>
>
>  > Rather than answering the same newbie * questions every month, or telling
>  > people to search the archives, we could direct people to Wiki pages -- if
>  > those pages had the right info.
>
>  > * That's not meant as a slam on newbies, as they can't help but have the
>  > same old questions.
>
>Actually, I think this kind of reasoning is rubish!
>
>First, on Synth-DIY most of the newbie question isn't a problem, and to be
>honest, not on AH either. However, the dry and sometimes even rude comments to
>check the archives is much worse! It doesn't give a welcoming feeling to the
>first thing slap people in the face. Also, I often find that it is even the
>newbie questions that sometimes causes the interesting discussions among those
>who actually know stuff. The newbie has in his blessed state of ignorance of
>what the view is been able to ask the wrong question in a interesting enought
>way that we have something new to discuss. If everybody agrees about 
>everything
>there is not needs for discussions and thus no need for the list. I even find
>it challenging (in a positive way) to correctly answer a newbie question.
>
>This kind of "bandwidth compression" way of thinking may have been usefull for
>the USENET NEWS but I don't think it is a good way of doing things for us. It
>doesn't promote to get a good discussion and working social community. It is
>even since we lack it in Synth-DIY that we work better than some other places.
>The archives exists (is BTW really everything in the archives? I don't think
>so!) and they are a great resource and we should always recommend a visit
>there, but I don't think it is useful to always refer to it, and specifically
>it isn't usefull if you don't know the correct search-terms. The best way to
>refer back to the archive is by actually give a sufficient reference in order
>to actually find it in the archive, else it is like just pointing to the
>library and not say which section of a particular book in the library the
>answer could be found.
>
>I don't think it is a bad idea to have alot of information online, on the
>contruary, but I think bringing the politics of it into the list is a definite
>no-no and is just a missleading idea. Don't fix it, it works!

Where is there anything about politics?  Wikis are a good tool to 
consolidate information much the way FAQs have been used for years. 
I don't think anyone is suggesting to stop answering questions on 
mailing lists.  I've been on mailing lists/Usenet/forums/etc since 
1986, and I like them very much, thank you, but Wikis seem to be a 
good way for multiple people to edit and build longer entries than 
are typically posted to a mailing list.

>In my mind the same could be said to your post on the AH, but it is much more
>politically polarized and IMHO that doesn't really solve anything there.
>So, please do not fiddle with how things are done here at Synthi-DIY, I think
>we are doing well enought as it is. Not all perfect, but manageable 
>most of the
>time.

I have been on both AH and Synth-DIY for many years precisely because 
they are both well managed.  There is a good balance of new and old 
and there are many very very intelligent knowledgeable people on both 
lists.  I have been on other lists which are full of newbies and 
don't have the same dynamics of AH and Synth-DIY.  I see the idea of 
getting the people on AH and Synth-DIY to contribute to WIKIs as an 
*adjunct* to the lists, not a way of "fiddling with how things are 
done here".

WIKIs reach out to people who know how to use Google but don't get 
mailing lists.  I think that is a laudable goal.

For years there has been a resource on http://machines.hyperreal.org/ 
and although it is a group activity, it seems to have fallen by the 
wayside.  I don't know if WIKI content seems good and fresh because 
it is new, or because of the open editing methods.  I tend to think 
the latter which would lead me to think that more electronic music 
WIKI content would only be a good thing.

>
>Cheers,
>Magnus


-- 
Simon Gatrall
gatrall at pacbell.net