2013/2/6 Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 11:46:13AM +0000, alex wrote:
>> On 6 February 2013 09:45, Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think it's reasonable requirement to not have "original research" in
>> an encyclopedia page.
>
> Yes, I see and respect that. I was noting it because we are generally
> in between "research" and "fun", there is a lot of balancing going on
> there; it's not just "bleeps for parties" or "we're the experts
> because the field is so obscure that nobody else cares". This balance
> is both important and a endless source of amusement. The Wikipedia
> policy tilts that a bit. That's not bad but it is something to be
> aware of. I am not actually advocating that we hand out questionnaires
> for clubbers to self-report relative levels of happiness. This would
> a) be a mess and b) require controlling for factors the subjects
> likely won't feel like controlling for ;-)
I had a lot of the same issues when trying to establish a good
wikipedia article for beatboxing. A lot of the real origins of
beatboxing are very poorly documented (mostly just half-sentences in
hip-hop books etc, or oral history well-known among beatboxers - also,
in a good documentary film that never went to worldwide release), and
so there's an inevitable bias towards the more recent work by more
privileged and tech-oriented people. There's also a tendency for the
wiki to accumulate random crap from people who use the term
"beatboxing" much more loosely than the specific cultural form it
originally designated, e.g. to claim it was invented by Paul McCartney
- as it CURRENTLY ACTUALLY SAYS on wkp >:(
Anyway, the same thing will happen to livecoding. Get ready to learn
about how it was invented by Einstein, since he clearly wrote
statements in formalised languages, while he was alive, which makes it
live-coding ysee...
Dan
Received on Wed Feb 06 2013 - 12:51:54 GMT