I am still thinking about this whistle comparison thing that came up under the topic of ‘reedy whistles’.
I am toying with the idea of creating some web-based resource where people could put clips of different whistles and anyone could rate them for various attributes. Some thoughts:
attributes could include reedy/flutey/pure/chiffy/breathy/… whatever
attributes could also include easy/medium/hard blower; good 0xx000 Cawk; etc etc
how to prevent long reviews
clips should be reasonably short and not enhanced
musical skill would not be the issue
makers and sellers would be positively welcomed
site would need some kind of categorisation maker/model/key etc
I do not have any web-site design skill, but I could cobble something together using YouTube as a hosting site for videos (single still picture acceptable). Maybe with a front end in FaceBook or MySpace so members/friends could post their comments.
Do you think this would be of general use? Would you contribute? Would you use it? Do you have any ideas?
It’s a nice idea, but could get unwieldy very quickly. I wondered about a whistle wiki where people could post information on the plethora of whistles out there with links to clips on Youtube and other online resources, rather like we do here, but with a more permanent structure. That way people could access as much or as little information as they want to. Do these already exist for other instruments?
Oh, and I know that the main C&F site has some pages on the more common whistles, so that’d be a great place to start with, but the wiki aspect could help keep the information current without adding to Dale’s workload.
Yes, a Wiki could work well, but it would require a host server which I, personally, do not have. I do not even have a website, except as provided by SourceForge for specific other purposes (and YouTube, and FaceBook such as they are). I know others have servers and such things, but I was trying to avoid the ‘somebody should do something, but not me’ approach, and suggesting what I could (try to) do.
However, if someone wishes to do a better job then they would have my enthusiastic support; although the only resource I have to give is my time.
I have web hosting space, but I can’t afford to host high-bandwidth items like music files. OTOH, it would be easy enough to link to files hosted elsewhere, like youtube, box.net, etc.
I actually have actually, over the years, messed with setting up the framework of such a site using Drupal – I just wasn’t sure anyone else would want to contribute to it. But if there were interest, I could get a framework up and ready for contributions relatively soon… I’m disabled and at home all day, so I have time to work on it, but OTOH I have intermittent health issues and it would be good if I had co-admins to pick up the slack when I’m down for the count.
If someone with more competence and server space were to step up, all the better, but if there’s no-one else with the time, well, time is something i have in abundance.
Actually, I rechecked and I appear to have unlimited bandwidth.
I don’t know wiki software at all, but I’ve been playing around with Drupal for ages, and just got it up and running on my hosted domain again. I’ll see if I can knock together some sort of basic set-up this week, but I am entirely willing to step aside if anyone more competent chooses to step up to the plate.
Are there any volunteers for co-admins? Drupal has a bit of a learning curve, but it is (perhaps excessively) documented at drupal.org, and there’s even a Drupal for Dummies book out now. I favor it because I’m into well-organized information, and Drupal kind of specializes in that.
I have been working with PmWiki for years, using it as site admin in a number of small business and community sites, and written some skins and other add-ons, and know it fairly well. I could help with setting up a PmWiki site. I don’t like Drupal, I find it to be too inflexible and complicated.
I downloaded PMWiki and installed it on my test server, and I intend to play with it for a while to get a feel for what it’s like. I really have no experience with wikis at all, though, aside from an obscure edit to Wikipedia (about crocheting lace with insanely fine thread, one of my few areas of real expertise…).
Drupal can definitely get complicated, but for whatever odd reason, I enjoy tinkering with it, thus my volunteerism. I was playing around with some modules and ideas today for stuff like polling to rate attributes of the various whistles (chiff, reedyness, volume, etc), as well as ways to embed audio and video, etc.
I will offer my help/support/time with the site whatever tools get chosen. I have no expertise in this area, but I do have time, the ability to learn, and a moderately high geek co-efficient in certain techy areas.
Wiki fans, please point me toward some links on the philosophy/wonderfulness of wikis. I don’t know enough about them to visualize how/why to organize information that way. I plead complete ignorance – please inform me.
Meanwhile, I have used Drupal to set up a forum where anyone who’s interested can contribute ideas or suggestions on where we might go with this idea.
It’s at whistlesDOTtangleweedsDOTcom (I don’t want search engines or spambot spiders to find it yet!). And let me know if there are any hitches with registration. My email is tangleweedsATgmailDOTcom .
For me, wiki is the ideal software for an ideal community - that said, in a less-than-perfect world, it has drawbacks. Ideally, everyone contributes to their best knowledge to built an ever better knowledge base about whatever the wiki is about (a wiki that comprises all knowledge about everything is theoretically possible, but impractical as of yet). But since the only real wiki is a really open wiki, vandals (and spammers) can be a real burden - but modern wiki software supports revisions, so it’s always possible to revert to anything that’s in a more desirable state of affairs than a ruined page or site.
PmWiki is a great piece of wiki software - it’s simple, compact, yet flexible and powerful through a highly developed extension (plugins and skins) system that’s accessible through the Cookbook - an unsurpassed resource in my eyes. Documentation is also very good, and the site is well maintained (if a bit stuffed - but that’s not uncommon for a wiki). And when it comes to the drawbacks I mentioned, well, PmWiki allows for fine-grained revision control by administrators or moderators - or for different levels of access if need be (up to full user rights controls requiring registration - like a common content management system or bulletin board).
In my experience, wikis require about the same level of moderation and care as a forum - that is, moderators have to visit and have a look around daily.
I disagree with this last sentence. A wiki may not have any moderators at all. And if it is an active community, there will always be many eyes seeing what changes have happened, and correct mistakes, as well as vandalism.
One intermediate step from a totally open wiki to a wiki which requires user registration would be for editing any page to require to login with a general password, and have this password openly distributed, even openly displayed on the homepage. This will prevent an amazing number of spam vandalism, as much of this is done by spam bots.
i forgot, there is a site that already does this a little bit… maybe we can just ask to contribute? or maybe roll into a new site the work that’s already been done?
anyway, lots of free clips of great songs and different whistles… the o’brien whistle recordings in particular are good, and i like the reyburn ones too.
Truth demands the gestault of understanding - and never claims rest .. we self-organising systems are subject to an unfortunate side-effect called “local minima” - local minima are great for getting teh next step .. but they are not the truth.
So do your wiki - it will help many out of their local-minimae .. but never fool yourself that what you read out of a little square of light is beter than what you can hold, and feel and taste and hear in the presence of the whole world shining around you 360 degrees, 24/7 in better resolution than high-def for no cost whatsoever with unlimited bandwidth.
Do your “due-diligence” minimise your risk!
At teh end of the day - that’s your breath and your skill - and those are your pathogens, mixed with your dietary customs making little colonies in your whistle.
Bleh - it’s players, not whistles. The whistle will either support you doing what you do or not.
I know, we are all global, I know we quest for our best .. but in the end. Committment will triumph, and don’t get too prideful about what works for you - it might be the last thing the next guy wants or needs.
DO your best - but remember - nothing is ever really enough until you live it.
Most failure hapens before utterance.
If it’s right for you it’s right.
Reality beats “due dilligence” hands-down - “try” does not mean “attempt” - it means “experience” .. then decide - and don’t get too fooled by “experts”.
That’s generally true. However, wikis really need care - people need to be ready to show responsibility and act upon it. So, IF (and that’s a big “if”) the community behaves in a decent and constructive way, you’re absolutely right. If not, there should be specific people who care and are ready and able to act. That said, I always try “fully open” first (I’m a big admirer of Ward Cunningham’s original concept) - but if it doesn’t work, I restrict user rights gradually and look for moderators. And on a site where opinions are going to be voiced, I’d monitor developments pretty closely…
What Mitch said has also a lot of truth in it (no pun intended): No wiki can replace personal experience - but it can offer a host of ideas and guidance. As one who has learned loads from this and similar forums, but also had to wade through lots of additional information to get there (often very interesting and entertaining, but nevertheless), I think a wiki can be a great tool to concentrate information and organise it together.
I alluded to the notion of self-organising systems. All they need to work is a functional network of contributors who are constrained to behave in a standard framework PLUS a determinant of success. The success determinant emphasises the contributing links to success and de-values failed contributions .. that’s the “back-propagation” model. If the wiki was fitted with wieghted hyperlinks it would function as a neural net. Moderation might simply consist of a vote applied by contributors to any conclusions offered. The conclusions could be offered by contributors. IF the iterations of the system were indefinite, the whole system would remain current so long as contributions persist. Local minimae could be avoided by re-calculating teh network whenever a new conclusion was offered.
I like the wiki idea, and think it should exist, but I’m suspecting that I’m not the correct person to be responsible for it. Yet I am strongly enough in favor of its existence to be willing to host it, if someone else would volunteer to be primarily responsible for maintaining it.
The kind of website that I would personally enjoy making & maintaining is much more of a database of info-bytes, doing ratings calculations, and serving up relevant URLs, reviews, or embedded media content according to the user’s interests and selections. The kinds of geekiness I enjoy is tinkering with data and functions, objects and actions, plus a sort of OCD obsession with indexing and organizing things into categories. I think of it as something akin to building wind-up toys, or tinkering with motorized lego.
But I really think the wiki thing should exist!! I just think it needs a different sort of personality behind it than mine. So stop and take a look at yourself – are you a good candidate for administering such a thing? Wanna take it on? Step right up…
In fact, I think the two things would complement each other, but by functioning very differently. I could see my database thingy containing references to this WhistleWiki, which I see as an evolving repository of accumulated wisdom. Whereas my thing would be more of an accumulation of discrete (but tallied) ratings, links, demos, evaluations, where each user’s ratings or contribution had its own little space, and would be served up on demand based on other user’s search criteria.
I fundamentally disagree with Tasilaga on the issue of one player playing lots of whistles. Surely this is the ideal comparison? I also disagree with the first post, musical aptitude should be a prerequisite, otherwise we would be bombarded with wannabes playing good istruments badly and this cannot be a good way to compare instruments.
