 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Feb 26, 2020 - 11:33 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rozsaphile
(Member)
|
Wikipedia’s page on Max Steiner needs some editing. I don’t know about HTML so I can’t fix it.
Yes, you can! Deleting, replacing, or modifying a sentence is very simple. Just go to the Edit mode, highlight the passage, then fix it. There's a preview mode to test your improved version. Then you can save it.
Some features are admittedly more difficult: italics, diacritics, cross-references, etc. Wikipedia has tutorials on all such things. You can let them go for now. Footnoting is also challenging, but you can take the easy route at first and just cite your source in the text. The more you fix, the easier it will become.
I must disagree with Ray's comment above. Wikipedia today is a fabulously useful resource for those of us who lack ready access to a great research library. Yes, it is very uneven. Use with caution! But it benefits from the efforts of genuine enthusiasts who (like many folks in this forum) know a lot about their subject. Editing Wikipedia articles would be a far better use of time for film music mavens than wondering whether an album is to be released on Monday or Tuesday or debating the merits of the second or third alternate take of some cue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I honestly forgot abut the two separate films.
(I'm obviously not a Kong fan, having done this...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 26, 2020 - 9:22 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
sajrocks
(Member)
|
Rozsaphile wrote:
Wikipedia today is a fabulously useful resource for those of us who lack ready access to a great research library. Yes, it is very uneven. Use with caution! But it benefits from the efforts of genuine enthusiasts who (like many folks in this forum) know a lot about their subject.
THIS. What's more, for better or worse the media, young academics and burgeoning enthusiasts often use it as a one-stop shop for any and all information they are looking for. This is exacerbated by the fact that algorithms rank them so high on search lists, usually at the top. No one in this community is going to be able to stop or fix it, and it's not going to stop or go away, but we can certainly take the time to ensure that details on our favorite composers are accurate, well-sourced and up-to-date. I learned this the hard way.
Last year I noticed that a composer I've been following since the 1980s (and the wily days of microfiche!) started having consistent misinformation follow them around during a sudden burst of media attention. I was able to follow it back to their woefully untended Wikipedia page. It took a few weeks but I finally got it up to speed and now only have to go back for an occasional pruning and to fight the vandals. There have been about 500,000 visitors to the page since the update, and in my mind that's about 500,000 better informed now and future fans.
Editing Wikipedia articles would be a far better use of time for film music mavens than wondering whether an album is to be released on Monday or Tuesday or debating the merits of the second or third alternate take of some cue.
Can't we do both? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Feb 27, 2020 - 9:53 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rozsaphile
(Member)
|
Here's an interesting example. The Alfred Newman article isn't bad, but for years it misstated the subject's birth year as 1901. (Newman was actually born in 1900, but for some reason he subtracted a year from his age and the mistake was perpetuated in dozens of sources for decades.) I kept correcting the Wiki entry, and some well-meaning soul should kept changing it back to 1901. He was innocently following a misguided source. We argued the subject in Wiki's Talk Page. That feature, like the "Article History" page, is a valuable way to get inside the editing process. Finally, I provided the best documentation, namely, Fred Steiner's dissertation and Dictionary of American Biography article. I was reminded to make the change in both the text and the special box that accompanies biographical entries. In this case we agreed that the controversy was worth describing in the article itself. Problem solved at last. (At least it was correct the last time I looked.)
Not every correction process becomes as convoluted as that one. But bit by bit, full accuracy is approached. Think of it as building a cathedral of knowledge. It may take centuries, but the end product will be a thing of beauty and value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Newman wiki age still says 1900.
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it benefits from the efforts of genuine enthusiasts who (like many folks in this forum) know a lot about their subject.
But know almost zip about
-proper citations
-not plagiarizing
-civil disagreement
-academic writing, in general
I give Wikipedia about as much credence as I give to things I hear at a party, unless sources are cited. Hence, it's a great place to hear gossip, mostly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
