Music Encyclopedia Vs Wikipedia

[Gryvix]

Sometimes I'm wondering what's the use of making your own articles when wikipedia already has a quite elaborate article on it?
Wouldn't it easier to be copying it and using that as a basis and try to get more elaborate on things that isn't treated there?

Just trying to put up a discussion ^^

[Composer]

Originally Posted by Gryvix

Sometimes I'm wondering what's the use of making your own articles when wikipedia already has a quite elaborate article on it?
Wouldn't it easier to be copying it and using that as a basis and try to get more elaborate on things that isn't treated there?

Just trying to put up a discussion ^^

I've thought of that too, but the Copyright-law stopped me from copying

[MaestroX]

Actually all of wikipedia's content is under the GNU (General Public License) which means that it is free to everyone for any use. So yes we can use their articles as a base but I would prefer to work from the ground up. The problem with Wikipedia is that it revolves around music in context of history and art not in context of musicians, composers and music lovers.

Personally I think wikipedia's articles are not great for music. The violin article for example is useless to young composers and does not deal with how to use them in composistion, but that is of course because it is a general encylopedia and not a music specific encylopedia

[MaestroX]

The Music Encylopedia has come under heavy critisism at good-music-guide forums. I would appreciate if anyone with an acount there could back me up on this.

The thread is here: http://www.good-music-guide.com/foru...?topic=10352.0

Any feedback from what you think is great asell

[Composer]

Originally Posted by MaestroX

The Music Encylopedia has come under heavy critisism at good-music-guide forums. I would appreciate if anyone with an acount there could back me up on this.

The thread is here: http://www.good-music-guide.com/foru...?topic=10352.0

Any feedback from what you think is great asell

On my way :wink:

[Composer]

Originally Posted by Composer

On my way :wink:

Mission finished

[Silhouette]

I think the guys there were being far too critical and only kept repeating their points, just ignore them MaestroX the encyclopedia is not a waste of time and will be helpful and is NOT a copy of wikipedia, otherwise when i was creating articles i would have solely used wikipedia, rather than what i actually did, use many sources off the internet and from books!! I never knew people could be so critical of something open for so little time and i bet they haven't even bothered reading them properly to back their 'points'.

[MaestroX]

Mission finished

Thanks. And thanks Silhouette also, its good to hear that i've got the support here too

[Composer]

Originally Posted by Silhouette

I think the guys there were being far too critical and only kept repeating their points, just ignore them MaestroX the encyclopedia is not a waste of time and will be helpful and is NOT a copy of wikipedia, otherwise when i was creating articles i would have solely used wikipedia, rather than what i actually did, use many sources off the internet and from books!! I never knew people could be so critical of something open for so little time and i bet they haven't even bothered reading them properly to back their 'points'.

Haha, you are very right :o

[Thorolf]

The strength of the specialiced project is that people can meet with a consistent approach. Wikipedia is just like the internet, flat structure, some misinformation, hobbyists fiddleing with details, difficult to know what is what.

Specialized projects like the M-W EP are far more transparent, its weaknesses are easier exposed, but also easier corrected, as the connection between existing articles are more limited and easier to get around.

I support both, and I see no reason to why M-W EP couldn’t be taken into Wikipedia in some years, if both grow up, and gets even better by it. But we will have to wait and see about that…



Regards