A first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article

I figured the havoc I could cause by editing the Lucy Tuning page
could not be very great, so I changed the page (in markup language
form) from this

'''Lucy tuning''' is a [[musical tuning]] based on two [[musical
interval]]s: the [[octave]], which is 2/1, and the ''larger note'',
which is 1/2π octave, or slightly less than a [[whole tone]].
The ''lesser note'' is then defined so that two lesser notes plus
five larger notes equal one octave. It was discovered by [[Charles
Lucy]] in old writings of [[John Harrison]].

==External links==
* http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
* [http://www.lucytune.com Tuning system derived from pi and the
writngs of John 'Longitude' Harrison.]

{{msg:stub}}

to this

'''Lucy tuning''' is a form of [[meantone temperament]], in which the
fifth is of size 600+100/π [[Cent (music)|cent]]s. Its main
advocate is [[Charles Lucy]], who discovered it in old writings of
[[John Harrison]].

==External links==
* http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
* [http://www.lucytune.com Tuning system derived from π and the
writings of John 'Longitude' Harrison.]

I'll be interested to see if it stays that way. I put up a version
and went away to find out how to do a "pi", and when I came back the
old version had been restored.

At 12:58 AM 1/24/2004, you wrote:
>I figured the havoc I could cause by editing the Lucy Tuning page
>could not be very great, so I changed the page (in markup language
>form) from this
>
>
>'''Lucy tuning''' is a [[musical tuning]] based on two [[musical
>interval]]s: the [[octave]], which is 2/1, and the ''larger note'',
>which is 1/2π octave, or slightly less than a [[whole tone]].
>The ''lesser note'' is then defined so that two lesser notes plus
>five larger notes equal one octave. It was discovered by [[Charles
>Lucy]] in old writings of [[John Harrison]].
>
>==External links==
>* http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
>* [http://www.lucytune.com Tuning system derived from pi and the
>writngs of John 'Longitude' Harrison.]
>
>
>{{msg:stub}}
>
>to this
>
>'''Lucy tuning''' is a form of [[meantone temperament]], in which the
>fifth is of size 600+100/π [[Cent (music)|cent]]s. Its main
>advocate is [[Charles Lucy]], who discovered it in old writings of
>[[John Harrison]].

Good show!

>==External links==
>* http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
>* [http://www.lucytune.com Tuning system derived from π and the
>writings of John 'Longitude' Harrison.]
>
>I'll be interested to see if it stays that way.

Indeed.

>I put up a version
>and went away to find out how to do a "pi", and when I came back the
>old version had been restored.

How do these people communicate, I wonder? I've never used a comment
in my brief experience to Wiki-markup, but I assume there's a way of
making them. If so, you should put something like...

! Edited by Gene Ward Smith. If you feel like undoing this change,
! proceed to groups.yahoo.com/tuning to be convinced otherwise.

...well, maybe you could tone that down a bit, but I think we should
be firm here. :)

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> How do these people communicate, I wonder? I've never used a
comment
> in my brief experience to Wiki-markup, but I assume there's a way of
> making them. If so, you should put something like...

You can talk about a page, and vote on removal, etc. But I may have
just screwed up myself with the back button on my browser or
something. I don't understand why the Wikipedia isn't complete crap,
but somehow it seems to work.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> You can talk about a page, and vote on removal, etc. But I may have
> just screwed up myself with the back button on my browser or
> something.

Apparently not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Lucy_tuning&action=history

Maveric149? I wonder what the hell he thought he was doing, and why?
Emperorbma seems to have put it back, if I am reading this right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maveric149

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emperorbma

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Lucy_tuning&action=history
> > Maveric149? I wonder what the hell he thought he was doing, and why? > Emperorbma seems to have put it back, if I am reading this right.

It looks to me like Maveric149 rolled back to the state before you edited it, which happened to be Emperorbma's revision. But then a load more changes were made, probably by you. Did you reload the browser or something? And now this Reddi's turned up and made a minor modification.

I can't find moderation comments anywhere.

I did see one of these pages before, and decided that as it linked to me there wasn't any point in splitting hairs. There isn't actually much physics in the "Mathematics of ..." page, and what isn't mathematics has to be there to make the rest understandable.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?
title=Lucy_tuning&action=history
> >
> > Maveric149? I wonder what the hell he thought he was doing, and
why?
> > Emperorbma seems to have put it back, if I am reading this right.
>
> It looks to me like Maveric149 rolled back to the state before you
> edited it, which happened to be Emperorbma's revision. But then a
load
> more changes were made, probably by you. Did you reload the
browser or
> something? And now this Reddi's turned up and made a minor
modification.
>
> I can't find moderation comments anywhere.

I've been discussing this over on Wikipedia, and they say I should
have made them, but it seems not everyone does. Anyway, I'm now
registered and therefore respectible; I also can put pages on *my*
watch list, which evidently is what Maveric149 did.

>
> I did see one of these pages before, and decided that as it linked
to me
> there wasn't any point in splitting hairs. There isn't actually
much
> physics in the "Mathematics of ..." page, and what isn't
mathematics has
> to be there to make the rest understandable.

What mathematics? That page is a mess, starting from the title and
moving on.

>You can talk about a page, and vote on removal, etc. But I may have
>just screwed up myself with the back button on my browser or
>something. I don't understand why the Wikipedia isn't complete crap,
>but somehow it seems to work.

It's called CVS, or some other suitable database backend. In case
of vandalism someone rolls it back. But with so many pages, how do
they keep track? Even RecentChanges wouldn't be tenable. They
must send a notification to the owner of a page when it's updated...?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> It's called CVS, or some other suitable database backend. In case
> of vandalism someone rolls it back. But with so many pages, how do
> they keep track? Even RecentChanges wouldn't be tenable. They
> must send a notification to the owner of a page when it's
updated...?

If you register, you can put a page on your watch list, and be
notified of any changes. Then when irresponsible vandals like me
change things, you can immediately change them back.

on 1/24/04 4:45 AM, Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk> wrote:

> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Lucy_tuning&action=history
>>
>> Maveric149? I wonder what the hell he thought he was doing, and why?
>> Emperorbma seems to have put it back, if I am reading this right.
>
> It looks to me like Maveric149 rolled back to the state before you
> edited it, which happened to be Emperorbma's revision. But then a load
> more changes were made, probably by you. Did you reload the browser or
> something? And now this Reddi's turned up and made a minor modification.
>
> I can't find moderation comments anywhere.

Well there were already short comments appearing on the history page.

Gene, Perhaps you can avoid using the word "Crackpot" in your comments you
would reduce the chances of causing a reaction that would cause your changes
to be undone. Be more informational. Your name might already be stained
though, and you might need to get a new user id.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> Gene, Perhaps you can avoid using the word "Crackpot" in your
comments you
> would reduce the chances of causing a reaction that would cause your
changes
> to be undone.

I think "LucyTuning", who started this and who probably put up the new
Charles Lucy page also, is responsible and if so I think he should
admit to it. By what I read, he is *not* the one who should decide
what goes on a page about Lucy Tuning, because they are big believers
in a Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. I moved that version to Wikinfo,
who believe in a Postive Point of View.

> Be more informational.

I pointed out that according to this wonderful theory, a major second
is more consonant than a major sixth. I think that was both
informative and showed the theory was nonsensical. It also, true or
false, has nothing whatever to do with Lucy tuning and does not belong
on a page about it.

Your name might already be stained
> though, and you might need to get a new user id.

Rubbish. If they can't handle well-educated contributors, they can't
very well expect to make much progress.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> I think "LucyTuning", who started this and who probably put up the new
> Charles Lucy page also, is responsible

I meant to say, is probably Charles Lucy himself.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
> > Gene, Perhaps you can avoid using the word "Crackpot"
> > in your comments you would reduce the chances of causing
> > a reaction that would cause your changes to be undone.
>
> I think "LucyTuning", who started this and who probably put
> up the new Charles Lucy page also, is responsible and if so
> I think he should admit to it. By what I read, he is *not*
> the one who should decide what goes on a page about Lucy Tuning,
> because they are big believers in a Neutral Point of View,
> or NPOV. I moved that version to Wikinfo, who believe in a
> Postive Point of View.
>
> > Be more informational.
>
> I pointed out that according to this wonderful theory,
> a major second is more consonant than a major sixth.
> I think that was both informative and showed the theory was
> nonsensical. It also, true or false, has nothing whatever
> to do with Lucy tuning and does not belong on a page about it.
>
> > Your name might already be stained
> > though, and you might need to get a new user id.
>
> Rubbish. If they can't handle well-educated contributors,
> they can't very well expect to make much progress.

umm ... i'm hard at work transforming the old Tuning Dictionary
into the Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia of Tuning, and hoping that
all of you will make *that* your major reference for tuning
matters.

-monz
(wondering why there is so much fuss about Wikipedia)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> umm ... i'm hard at work transforming the old Tuning Dictionary
> into the Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia of Tuning, and hoping that
> all of you will make *that* your major reference for tuning
> matters.

Apples and oranges--Wikipedia is a general-purpose, all-topics
encyclopedia in the making.

> (wondering why there is so much fuss about Wikipedia)

Google loves it. It has many links and much activity, so googling is
likely to hit a Wikipedia article early and often.

>umm ... i'm hard at work transforming the old Tuning Dictionary
>into the Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia of Tuning, and hoping that
>all of you will make *that* your major reference for tuning
>matters.

Actually I was hoping you'd get on board and mirror some of the
tuning dictionary stuff over on Wikipedia.

-Carl

>> (wondering why there is so much fuss about Wikipedia)
>
>Google loves it. It has many links and much activity, so googling
>is likely to hit a Wikipedia article early and often.

Comparing a trad html "database" to a Wiki is like comparing a
rubber band gun to the Vulcan Gatling gun on an F14 (which fires
50 rounds per second or something).

-Carl

>>> (wondering why there is so much fuss about Wikipedia)
>>
>>Google loves it. It has many links and much activity, so
>>googling is likely to hit a Wikipedia article early and often.
>
>Comparing a trad html "database" to a Wiki is like comparing a
>rubber band gun to the Vulcan Gatling gun on an F14 (which fires
>50 rounds per second or something).

By the way, any of you secretly hoping to wait until the whole
Wiki thing blows over, fuggedaboutit. They'll be as popular as
standard web sites before long, and the standard way businesses
manage internal data (you'll be using them at work). And
operating systems in which the file system is presented to the
user via a Wiki are conceivable... So might as well learn to
use them now.

Those of you waiting for the whole Vorbis thing to blow over
may have considerably more success.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> umm ... i'm hard at work transforming the old Tuning Dictionary
> into the Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia of Tuning, and hoping that
> all of you will make *that* your major reference for tuning
> matters.
>

Monz,

Your dictionary is _your_ dictionary. It is not a consensus effort
and it reflects your interests, tastes, biases (is that the right
pl.?). Your name is on the first page and you take responsibility
for the content. A consensus dictionary would be a different
document with a different feeling. I think the world needs both
kinds of dictionary.

I don't know if you could change you dictionary into a consensus
dictionary, but for one person, I don't think it's worth changing.

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> Those of you waiting for the whole Vorbis thing to blow over
> may have considerably more success.
>
> -Carl

That would be bad. For the bandwidth, OGG has superior quality for
music. Not surprising, though, it's the only audio format that was
put togther by musicians.

Gabor

>> Those of you waiting for the whole Vorbis thing to blow over
>> may have considerably more success.
>
>
>That would be bad. For the bandwidth, OGG has superior quality for
>music. Not surprising, though, it's the only audio format that was
>put togther by musicians.

But the bandwidth savings aren't that great (not even a factor of 2)
and newer formats such as the AAC popularized by Apple do at least
as well. Meanwhile the most demanding audiophiles can be satisfied
with 256Kbps mp3. The vorbis metadata model is better than mp3, as
is the multi-channel (> stereo) support... both nice but not
sufficient at this stage of the game. Vorbis support will probably
survive so that nobody is caught with unplayable files, but it will
also probably never become a leading standard.

-Carl

on 1/26/04 8:04 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
>> I think "LucyTuning", who started this and who probably put up the new
>> Charles Lucy page also, is responsible
>
> I meant to say, is probably Charles Lucy himself.

Well, I don't know the person. Perhaps avoiding the word "Crackpot" would
not help your cause in this case. However, it still can't hurt, and using
the word probably doesn't greatly aid your cause either, I would guess.

When I said "informational" I meant in your comments describing the change.
I have no doubt of the information in the content you create.

-Kurt

>>> I think "LucyTuning", who started this and who probably put up the
>>> new Charles Lucy page also, is responsible
>>
>> I meant to say, is probably Charles Lucy himself.
>
>Well, I don't know the person. Perhaps avoiding the word "Crackpot"
>would not help your cause in this case. However, it still can't hurt,
>and using the word probably doesn't greatly aid your cause either, I
>would guess.

There's a subtle but important difference between merely throwing
around a term like crackpot, and applying it to things like LucyTuning.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> There's a subtle but important difference between merely throwing
> around a term like crackpot, and applying it to things like
LucyTuning.

I wasn't calling LucyTuning crackpot, because it isn't. I was calling
Lucy's discussion of it crackpot. While he did not claim it would
bring world peace on the Wiki page, throwing in an advertisement for
a system of evaluating consonances which makes no sense seems to me
to qualify.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"

> That would be bad. For the bandwidth, OGG has superior quality for
> music. Not surprising, though, it's the only audio format that was
> put togther by musicians.

Of course we should not allow the fact that it's the best available
compression format and that downloading and installing free software
which can play it is extremely easy influence us unduly.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> >
> > > Gene, Perhaps you can avoid using the word "Crackpot"
> > > in your comments you would reduce the chances of causing
> > > a reaction that would cause your changes to be undone.
> >
> > I think "LucyTuning", who started this and who probably put
> > up the new Charles Lucy page also, is responsible and if so
> > I think he should admit to it. By what I read, he is *not*
> > the one who should decide what goes on a page about Lucy Tuning,
> > because they are big believers in a Neutral Point of View,
> > or NPOV. I moved that version to Wikinfo, who believe in a
> > Postive Point of View.
> >
> > > Be more informational.
> >
> > I pointed out that according to this wonderful theory,
> > a major second is more consonant than a major sixth.
> > I think that was both informative and showed the theory was
> > nonsensical. It also, true or false, has nothing whatever
> > to do with Lucy tuning and does not belong on a page about it.
> >
> > > Your name might already be stained
> > > though, and you might need to get a new user id.
> >
> > Rubbish. If they can't handle well-educated contributors,
> > they can't very well expect to make much progress.
>
>
>
> umm ... i'm hard at work transforming the old Tuning Dictionary
> into the Tonalsoft Encyclopaedia of Tuning, and hoping that
> all of you will make *that* your major reference for tuning
> matters.
>
>
>
> -monz
> (wondering why there is so much fuss about Wikipedia)

Hi Monz,

Does this mean you're actually going to address the big backlog of
corrections I've sent you?

Best Regards,
Paul