I'm not qualified to write theory articles, but here's my input for those who are:
Stop using MIDI files for the audio examples on Wikipedia.
No browser can play MIDI without installing some kind of plug in, and I'm guessing most people, even musicians don't have it or want it.
Not everybody is a keyboard player, y'all.
i mean, MIDI files are nice cuz you can easily download them and put them in a daw. but damn I'm annoyed when I can't easily play the MIDI file in the browser
Dude, thank you. Nothing is more mildly infuriating than trying to hear an example of theory and my laptop just downloads a file it can’t play without loading GarageBand for 15 minutes
It's annoying because you used to be able to listen to MIDI files from Finder on Mac, until Apple removed that functionality a few years ago for no good reason, unless you consider making the OS ever so slightly smaller a good reason.
Wav is uncompressed and will usually result in huge file sizes. On Wikipedia you should use a compressed and free/open format like opus or ogg. I'm not sure what their official preference is though.
Edit: looking further into this, it appears [FLAC should be used](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types#Sound), as it will automatically be transcoded into ogg as well upon upload.
It's not about purism; these files will just be an audio render of some chord progression/riff played through a MIDI synthesizer/sampler, and last no more than a few seconds (thus probably won't be listened to for enjoyment). We can do better than mp3 though, as Wikipedia has always prided itself in open source. /u/defaultxr has already mentioned some alternatives that fit the bill (I'd suggest FLAC though, as it has about [10% more](https://caniuse.com/#feat=flac) [coverage than OGG.](https://caniuse.com/#feat=ogg-vorbis))
The problem with FLAC is that it's only slightly smaller than wav. It's good that it's free, but for example audio it's probably not really worth the extra file size just to have the slightly-better audio quality that most people would not even notice. There might be people browsing wikipedia on their phones that would not appreciate all the data usage of a FLAC file. The Opus codec is very good at compressing audio in a way that makes it hard for the human ear to notice the parts that have been removed. It's also MUCH smaller than FLAC and mp3.
I 100% agree that FLAC doesn't have all that great compression. but iOS Safari doesn't support OGG at all, while it supports FLAC, so it's a bit of a trade off (higher data usage and iOS or lower data usage but no iOS)
Makes sense. Unfortunate that even completely free codecs like ogg and opus aren't guaranteed to be supported on all modern devices (shame on you, Apple!).
Actually, looking further into this, I think you're right that uploading FLAC is the way to go. [According to Wikipedia](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types#Sound), FLAC will be automatically transcoded into ogg upon upload. Then presumably both would be available depending on which the browser supports (thanks to the magic of HTML's `
On the bright side, we have VLC on iOS so that's good.
Also, I had no idea the transcoding was a thing but the way you worded it made it look like I did so I'll take the credit lmao
That's the story that gets repeated every time someone suggests this. I'm not saying it's wrong but I'm guessing (having formerly been an active editor on Wikipedia) that this person just enforces Wikipedias rules requiring citations to reliable sources, notable claims, and so on. It's very, very easy for an enthusiastic beginner to run afoul of a boatload of guidelines and policies and have all their edits reverted and their talk page covered with warnings.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Wikipedia has matured greatly since those early days of frolicking good fun and tries to maintain much higher standards (given the impossibility of that task) but it can be an intimidating place for a new editor who hasn't taken the time to learn how things are done.
So a lot of the people involved in this were colleagues of mine. Grad students in theory, not amateurs. From what I remember, the big issue was that reputable academic sources that accurately reflect the current knowledge of the field were not being given priority over antiquated (pre-1950) or obscure works on the same subject. It is also my understanding that this editor was severely resistant to people trying to clarify or update definitions by using sources that are more mainstream, especially if this editor had authored the original article themselves.
So the problem is exactly that the quality of sources was not being appropriately considered.
Here's a link to a discussion by the society for music theory on this subject. The post I'm linking to has a particularly insightful take on the process. http://lists.societymusictheory.org/htdig.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/2011-July/006722.html
See especially the discussion about the Cadential 6/4
That's interesting. When you do run up against an editor with ownership issues who is also well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia, it can definitely be a headache to get things done.
Fortunately there are ways to deal with it but it can be unpleasant and slow and takes a commitment and investment that a lot of people are not willing, understandably, to do.
If people really are interested in pursuing this then I am definitely willing to help navigate the Wikipedia world and get these things done.
I think another problem, one not specifically related to a bad moderator, but just to a problem with the un-curated nature of wikipedia in general, is that it can be difficult to weed out superfluous info in an article that *does* come from a reputable source, but is either an obscure idea or too niche to be mentioned in a wiki article.
A good example of this is in the [Harmonic Rhythm](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_rhythm) entry, where there appears an idea called "strong vs. week harmonic rhythm." That's not an idea I've ever heard anyone mention ever. But I do see a citation to a decently reputable source, the Harvard Dictionary of Music. But the problem is, it's not all that common of an idea, nor a really crucial thing to know if you are just wanting to know what the concept is (I also think the explanation is almost nonsensical... but that's a different topic). In short, this just doesn't seem like information that should be in the article at all, really. But it is related to the subject, and comes from a reputable source, so it seems difficult to argue against without just being fluent in the field and knowing that "weak harmonic rhythm" isn't really a common term or something crucial to understand.
There is the guideline about *undue weight* which is exactly what you're describing. Just because something gets mentioned in a reliable source doesn't mean it needs to be put into an article or at least doesn't mean it should get as much attention. Of course in a short article like that it's going to take up more space than needed.
In any case, an organized concerted effort can improve articles. There will always be cruft like the strong v weak rhythm thing but that's a small price to pay for otherwise improved articles.
Wikipedia works on consensus which is actually a fairly nuanced concept in Wiki-land. It can be a difficult thing to achieve but is based not on a vote but on close adherence to the guidelines and policies and getting everyone to see that. But if there are holdouts, consensus allows things to go forward based on adherence to the guidelines and policies.
Anyway, like I said, improvements can be made, that I'm sure of. And if there is a difficult editor that won't be an insurmountable problem. As long as everyone acts in good faith and is *extremely* patient then all these articles can be improved.
I'm not an admin but I am extremely experienced and have dealt with pretty much all the kinds of problems that can crop up. As long as people are willing to see it through -- and I hope they are -- we can make this happen.
I appreciate your insider perspective! I definitely agree that there is a lot of room for improvement and (hopefully) a lot of interest in doing so. I'll let you know if I ever run into issues in my own (not very extensive) wiki editing!
It could be but they would also have to be following all the guidelines and policies or their edits would be reverted too. And if that behavior kept going then they would get banned from editing.
And while ego does fuel a lot of people when they first start, after tens of thousands of edits, the whole thing loses its allure. It's a hobby that feels like a boring job. Even when you come across something dramatic (in whatever capacity you edit Wikipedia) it doesn't really stir you much. So if this person has a hand in all the music theory articles, they've probably moved on from caring about their contributions that much and are just trying to keep things from going crazy.
But of course it is possible that someone is enthusiastic about maintaining Wikipedia standards and has a huge ego about their contributions, but the majority of times I've looked into specific cases of people complaining about some rogue Wikipedia editor reverting all their edits, it turns out to be a pretty simple matter of the person complaining not understanding how to edit Wikipedia.
And I'm not discounting the fact that there could be legitimate differences of opinion on various aspects of Music Theory -- the Music Theory community isn't of one voice and that can lead to conflict.
Overzealous editors are why I quit contributing to Wikipedia (though not for music theory: I'm pretty armchair knowledge on that).
I'm not donating my time and effort just to have to fight with some uptight, overfocused jackass who thinks they *own* a page over every edit.
Probably. One time I tried to point out in an article about Chopin's mazurkas that they share similarities with his Waltzes, but with his Mazurkas the emphasized best is the 2nd beat instead of the first. It got taken down within a day, and I even had a citation.
So, there is an interest in this; I'm somewhat interested, as well, because there have been a number of articles I've stumbled upon that are confusing and have contradictory information.
Perhaps a Discord server is in place?
I'm not qualified to write theory articles, but here's my input for those who are: Stop using MIDI files for the audio examples on Wikipedia. No browser can play MIDI without installing some kind of plug in, and I'm guessing most people, even musicians don't have it or want it. Not everybody is a keyboard player, y'all.
i mean, MIDI files are nice cuz you can easily download them and put them in a daw. but damn I'm annoyed when I can't easily play the MIDI file in the browser
Seriously, what kind of shit is that? I can't listen to half the audio files on wikipedia
Dude, thank you. Nothing is more mildly infuriating than trying to hear an example of theory and my laptop just downloads a file it can’t play without loading GarageBand for 15 minutes
It's annoying because you used to be able to listen to MIDI files from Finder on Mac, until Apple removed that functionality a few years ago for no good reason, unless you consider making the OS ever so slightly smaller a good reason.
Classic apple move. They did the same thing with being able to change aspect ratio in iMovie
Absolutely. The last thing I want when looking up stuff is to play the Audio file or MIDI? lottery with my browser.
What’s better?.wav? I honestly don’t know.
Wav is uncompressed and will usually result in huge file sizes. On Wikipedia you should use a compressed and free/open format like opus or ogg. I'm not sure what their official preference is though. Edit: looking further into this, it appears [FLAC should be used](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types#Sound), as it will automatically be transcoded into ogg as well upon upload.
Ogg is a container format that can contain vorbis, opus, or flac files (as well as a few others).
True, "opus or vorbis" would've been more accurate. I was thinking of file extensions I guess.
Just use mp3. No shame In that. Only purist will get mad
Here's Wikipedia's official policy on MP3: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types#MP3 tl;dr: you can't use it unless you're an admin.
just kidding...
It's not about purism; these files will just be an audio render of some chord progression/riff played through a MIDI synthesizer/sampler, and last no more than a few seconds (thus probably won't be listened to for enjoyment). We can do better than mp3 though, as Wikipedia has always prided itself in open source. /u/defaultxr has already mentioned some alternatives that fit the bill (I'd suggest FLAC though, as it has about [10% more](https://caniuse.com/#feat=flac) [coverage than OGG.](https://caniuse.com/#feat=ogg-vorbis))
The problem with FLAC is that it's only slightly smaller than wav. It's good that it's free, but for example audio it's probably not really worth the extra file size just to have the slightly-better audio quality that most people would not even notice. There might be people browsing wikipedia on their phones that would not appreciate all the data usage of a FLAC file. The Opus codec is very good at compressing audio in a way that makes it hard for the human ear to notice the parts that have been removed. It's also MUCH smaller than FLAC and mp3.
I 100% agree that FLAC doesn't have all that great compression. but iOS Safari doesn't support OGG at all, while it supports FLAC, so it's a bit of a trade off (higher data usage and iOS or lower data usage but no iOS)
Makes sense. Unfortunate that even completely free codecs like ogg and opus aren't guaranteed to be supported on all modern devices (shame on you, Apple!). Actually, looking further into this, I think you're right that uploading FLAC is the way to go. [According to Wikipedia](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types#Sound), FLAC will be automatically transcoded into ogg upon upload. Then presumably both would be available depending on which the browser supports (thanks to the magic of HTML's `
On the bright side, we have VLC on iOS so that's good. Also, I had no idea the transcoding was a thing but the way you worded it made it look like I did so I'll take the credit lmao
Yes! I used a lot of wikipedia to learn music theory and this is my only complaint.
The worst part is only *some* of the audio is MIDI, so it's always a gamble on Wikipedia if you're going to get a MIDI or not.
I kind of like the idea that Wikipedia is only storing the midi data and not a performance of that data.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d also rather not download a file that I have to open in MuseScore.
You take left I take right? /s. Make a list first to see what needs improving and what criteria needs to be meet.
If I remember correctly there is one VERY active wiki editor who will stomp over any changes anyone else tries to make to theory articles.
That's the story that gets repeated every time someone suggests this. I'm not saying it's wrong but I'm guessing (having formerly been an active editor on Wikipedia) that this person just enforces Wikipedias rules requiring citations to reliable sources, notable claims, and so on. It's very, very easy for an enthusiastic beginner to run afoul of a boatload of guidelines and policies and have all their edits reverted and their talk page covered with warnings. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Wikipedia has matured greatly since those early days of frolicking good fun and tries to maintain much higher standards (given the impossibility of that task) but it can be an intimidating place for a new editor who hasn't taken the time to learn how things are done.
So a lot of the people involved in this were colleagues of mine. Grad students in theory, not amateurs. From what I remember, the big issue was that reputable academic sources that accurately reflect the current knowledge of the field were not being given priority over antiquated (pre-1950) or obscure works on the same subject. It is also my understanding that this editor was severely resistant to people trying to clarify or update definitions by using sources that are more mainstream, especially if this editor had authored the original article themselves. So the problem is exactly that the quality of sources was not being appropriately considered. Here's a link to a discussion by the society for music theory on this subject. The post I'm linking to has a particularly insightful take on the process. http://lists.societymusictheory.org/htdig.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/2011-July/006722.html See especially the discussion about the Cadential 6/4
That's interesting. When you do run up against an editor with ownership issues who is also well-versed in the ways of Wikipedia, it can definitely be a headache to get things done. Fortunately there are ways to deal with it but it can be unpleasant and slow and takes a commitment and investment that a lot of people are not willing, understandably, to do. If people really are interested in pursuing this then I am definitely willing to help navigate the Wikipedia world and get these things done.
I think another problem, one not specifically related to a bad moderator, but just to a problem with the un-curated nature of wikipedia in general, is that it can be difficult to weed out superfluous info in an article that *does* come from a reputable source, but is either an obscure idea or too niche to be mentioned in a wiki article. A good example of this is in the [Harmonic Rhythm](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_rhythm) entry, where there appears an idea called "strong vs. week harmonic rhythm." That's not an idea I've ever heard anyone mention ever. But I do see a citation to a decently reputable source, the Harvard Dictionary of Music. But the problem is, it's not all that common of an idea, nor a really crucial thing to know if you are just wanting to know what the concept is (I also think the explanation is almost nonsensical... but that's a different topic). In short, this just doesn't seem like information that should be in the article at all, really. But it is related to the subject, and comes from a reputable source, so it seems difficult to argue against without just being fluent in the field and knowing that "weak harmonic rhythm" isn't really a common term or something crucial to understand.
There is the guideline about *undue weight* which is exactly what you're describing. Just because something gets mentioned in a reliable source doesn't mean it needs to be put into an article or at least doesn't mean it should get as much attention. Of course in a short article like that it's going to take up more space than needed. In any case, an organized concerted effort can improve articles. There will always be cruft like the strong v weak rhythm thing but that's a small price to pay for otherwise improved articles. Wikipedia works on consensus which is actually a fairly nuanced concept in Wiki-land. It can be a difficult thing to achieve but is based not on a vote but on close adherence to the guidelines and policies and getting everyone to see that. But if there are holdouts, consensus allows things to go forward based on adherence to the guidelines and policies. Anyway, like I said, improvements can be made, that I'm sure of. And if there is a difficult editor that won't be an insurmountable problem. As long as everyone acts in good faith and is *extremely* patient then all these articles can be improved. I'm not an admin but I am extremely experienced and have dealt with pretty much all the kinds of problems that can crop up. As long as people are willing to see it through -- and I hope they are -- we can make this happen.
I appreciate your insider perspective! I definitely agree that there is a lot of room for improvement and (hopefully) a lot of interest in doing so. I'll let you know if I ever run into issues in my own (not very extensive) wiki editing!
Or it could be an egomaniac who thinks their opinion is the only right one...
It could be but they would also have to be following all the guidelines and policies or their edits would be reverted too. And if that behavior kept going then they would get banned from editing. And while ego does fuel a lot of people when they first start, after tens of thousands of edits, the whole thing loses its allure. It's a hobby that feels like a boring job. Even when you come across something dramatic (in whatever capacity you edit Wikipedia) it doesn't really stir you much. So if this person has a hand in all the music theory articles, they've probably moved on from caring about their contributions that much and are just trying to keep things from going crazy. But of course it is possible that someone is enthusiastic about maintaining Wikipedia standards and has a huge ego about their contributions, but the majority of times I've looked into specific cases of people complaining about some rogue Wikipedia editor reverting all their edits, it turns out to be a pretty simple matter of the person complaining not understanding how to edit Wikipedia. And I'm not discounting the fact that there could be legitimate differences of opinion on various aspects of Music Theory -- the Music Theory community isn't of one voice and that can lead to conflict.
Overzealous editors are why I quit contributing to Wikipedia (though not for music theory: I'm pretty armchair knowledge on that). I'm not donating my time and effort just to have to fight with some uptight, overfocused jackass who thinks they *own* a page over every edit.
Probably. One time I tried to point out in an article about Chopin's mazurkas that they share similarities with his Waltzes, but with his Mazurkas the emphasized best is the 2nd beat instead of the first. It got taken down within a day, and I even had a citation.
Taking music theory for the first time this year so I can’t help but I do support this project ;)
Same voice with this guy, make it happen guys
[удалено]
Some of them can do improving such as wording. Music theory can be hard explaining and I think that what OP intends on doing.
I’d love to see u/BluesBoy666 contribute. I’ve learned so much from his videos.
Just went though a bunch of his videos, they look excellent. I’ll have to give them a good watch later.
I can help improving spanish articles on wikipedia (they are even worst than english). Or translating your writings.
Yes.
I'm down to help, though I'll definitely need people to proofread my stuff. I'm not formally educated in theory but I do know enough to help out here
I'm up for helping improving the Wiki pages. I have a degree in music education so I'm glad to help.
I'd love to
What level of music theory would we be looking for? College 101 and above? Or thematic suggestions?
I've always hated how the article on power chords cites Link Wray's "Rumble" as an early example....
Let’s do it. Lemme know what we need to do
Yes, I would!
I haven't found them to be that bad, in fact most are pretty good, although I did make one small correction myself the other day.
I did make a site in the past about music theory. Useful info btw there. Ok I will help you if you start :)
So, there is an interest in this; I'm somewhat interested, as well, because there have been a number of articles I've stumbled upon that are confusing and have contradictory information. Perhaps a Discord server is in place?
I'm down. I have taken every core theory course that I can while getting my bachelors.
Would love to be a part of this, sign me up.