[Smt-talk] Wikipedia's Music Theory Problem (Or Music Theory's Wikipedia Problem)

[Devin Chaloux]

Dear Dr. Parsons,

Maybe we can respectively disagree on this subject. I think it is of the
utmost importance that any field of academia feel the necessity to improve
open source knowledge to the best of our ability. The problem with the
perception that anything can be edited away in a minute is due to the lack
of presence of knowledgeable scholars in music theory on Wikipedia. If you
look at other disciplines on Wikipedia, they have active groups of scholars
contributing to Wikipedia despite all their other professional duties.
Though it may be difficult to see, there is ultimately an end-game to
Wikipedia articles - a point where only cursory edits are needed to either
clean up language or introduce something new but not structural to the
article. These articles are considered FA-articles, reviewed by Wikipedians
in and out of the field.

To your last point, I think promoting the ideal of "students should not use
Wikipedia" is a war that we as pedagogues (on any level) will never win.
The fact is, young children have access to the internet today and without a
doubt they will stumble upon Wikipedia (being the 5th largest website on
the internet). Children in elementary school will be indoctrinated into the
Wikipedia culture and identify the website as a place to get information
(whether or not it is factually correct). By the time they reach high
school or college, it is all but a lost cause to deter their use of
Wikipedia. In fact, some of my own professors over the years have changed
their view on Wikipedia from avoidance to acceptance as *one* place to *
start* research. Wikipedia was never intended to be a reliable source one
can quote, but rather the amalgamation of knowledge from different view
points with "notable" sources.

This brings me to my final point which is directed once again to the entire
community as a plea for compromise when dealing with open source
collections like Wikipedia. It is not whether or not you believe
Schenkerian theory is viable, for instance. The fact is, there is a large
amount of the population that does believe it is a beneficial theory. There
is a significant group that believes otherwise too. Wikipedia is not the
place to fight those battles. As an example, there are Wikipedia articles
on Creationism and Evolution. It's safe to say that most people who believe
in one does not believe the other theory is viable. Yet, both exist on
Wikipedia due to their notability, regardless if one view is "right" or
"wrong."

I've said all I've needed to say about music theory and its status on
Wikipedia. I felt it necessary to discuss some of the reasons why music
theory's Wikipedia articles are not satisfactory. This is a subject I feel
strongly about as a young scholar who sees the benefits of such a resource.
If anyone wishes to continue the conversation, I will gladly do so off the
list.

Thank you for your time,
*
Devin Chaloux*
Indiana University
Ph.D. in Music Theory (enrolled)
University of Cincinnati - College-Conservatory of Music
M.M. in Music Theory '12
University of Connecticut
B.M. in Music Theory '10
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20121203/77c0d42e/attachment-0003.htm>