Thread: On using Wikipedia as a source

On the music thread, Andalee complained that many sources, including Wikipedia, had misled her into thinking "baladi" was the correct name for the rhythm masmoudi saghir.

I feel compelled to point out that Wikipedia is profoundly flawed as a source. That's because any idiot with a pet theory or agenda can put anything they want in there. There is no editor to evaluate the credentials of contributors and weed out those who want to blow smoke up your butt.

You or I could go to Wikipedia right this minute and edit the belly dance entry to say that it was brought to earth by space aliens 12,000 years ago. They landed their spacecraft on the Giza plateau where the Great Pyramid stands today.

We could say that the movement we call belly rolls today originated when the King of the Space Aliens got indigestion from eating dates from a palm tree along the Nile, and his stomach convulsed violently with the resulting belly ache, until he spewed it all out his anus in an explosive attack of diarrhea. The women of his household then incorporated these belly rolls into their dance as a way of teaching their children to avoid eating the dates.

We could also incorporate into the Wikipedia entry that the origin of the "hip drop and kick" move that we often do when the music goes into a baladi segment with heavy masmoudi saghir rhythm originated when the Queen of the Space Aliens was dancing outside the spaceship one night, accidentally stepped in a jackal turd, and did this move to try to wipe her foot off on the sand.

All of this could be done by any one of us. And it would stay there until some other people came along, discovered it, became appalled, and edited our entry to replace our Space Alien with their own theory about belly dance being invented by a now-extinct race of sentient cobras that inhabited ancient Egypt before migrations brought human beings to the region. (Did you ever wonder why the crowns worn by Pharaohs had Wadjet, the serpent goddess, depicted on them? It was a tribute to Ancient Ones who had lived there before the coming of the humans.) Anyway, the barely-more-than-Neanderthal humans were entranced by the sinuous movements of the Ancient Ones who were indigenous to the region, and invented the fluid moves we know of in belly dance today such as figure 8's and hip circles to honor them.

Okay, now that I have the above two paragraphs out of my system, I'll go back to my original point. Wikipedia is nothing more than a canvas upon which anyone with a pet theory, no matter how flawed, can write their own personal wishtory and put forth their own pet agenda.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About]Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars]Wikipedia:Five pillars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

30 Rock had a funny episode highlighting this problem with Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. In it, the vain "Jenna" character walked into the writer's room to announce that, in order to prepare for her upcoming role as Janis Joplin, she would be employing the "method" method of acting, haughtily instructing the staff that they must address her as Janet Jopler, or Jaime Jimplan (as the actual Joplan name changed in her starring vehicle for legal reasons). Not one who likes to be ordered around, writer "Frank" tells Jenna she should do her Joplin research on Wikipedia, "because people are finding out new things about Janis Joplin everyday" after which Frank immediately hops on the Janis Joplin Wikipedia page and loads it with factual inaccuracies, like "Janis Joplin speed walked everywhere and was afraid of toilets," (and as I recall, additional info that eventually gets her to sleep with him). So the Jenna character did some bizarre things around the office trying to emulate Joplin, it was a very funny episode.

Interestingly, immediately afterwards, the Wikipedia folks became concerned (in real life) that there would be a rush of pranksters copying the idea of adding false information to some of its pages. Probably with good reason.

-Devora

The undergraduate students I teach are often frustrated when they discover that Wikipedia is summarily banned for use as a source in most university courses, since Wikipedia is increasingly the go-to information resource for many people, especially of the so-called millennial generation.

I explain to them that, while Wikipedia can be a useful starting point for research insofar as it provides a basic introduction to a topic, the information you find there is only valuable if you can track it back either to print sources or to dated online publications. You need to know the point of origin of a claim in order to assess its reliability, based on who first said it, what research went into their conclusion, and where it fits into the timeline of scholarship on the topic (i.e. does later scholarship support the claim or call it into question?).

But, while caution is always to be advised when reading Wikipedia, this study is worth noting. I don't advise students to take everything they read in print publications as immutable truth, either, so I do find it plausible that Wikipedia is no less accurate than print encyclopaedias.

Originally Posted by Ainsley

The undergraduate students I teach are often frustrated when they discover that Wikipedia is summarily banned for use as a source in most university courses, since Wikipedia is increasingly the go-to information resource for many people, especially of the so-called millennial generation.

I explain to them that, while Wikipedia can be a useful starting point for research insofar as it provides a basic introduction to a topic, the information you find there is only valuable if you can track it back either to print sources or to dated online publications. You need to know the point of origin of a claim in order to assess its reliability, based on who first said it, what research went into their conclusion, and where it fits into the timeline of scholarship on the topic (i.e. does later scholarship support the claim or call it into question?).

But, while caution is always to be advised when reading Wikipedia, this study is worth noting. I don't advise students to take everything they read in print publications as immutable truth, either, so I do find it plausible that Wikipedia is no less accurate than print encyclopaedias.

I am working on my Doctorate now and all my professors tell us never, ever use Wikipedia ANYTHING. In fact I think it is banned in all my courses. I have never used it in my researches, as I know the information cannot be guaranteed for accuracy. I only read it for fun.

Hugs,
Amani

Originally Posted by Devora

Interestingly, immediately afterwards, the Wikipedia folks became concerned (in real life) that there would be a rush of pranksters copying the idea of adding false information to some of its pages. Probably with good reason.

Disclaimer: I'm one of the people who contributes to the "Belly Dance" article on Wikipedia, although I've not had the time to give it the revamp it needs. So, now you know where my stake is in this.

First, it's hardly the first time there's been a massive rush to edit a page. There is a whole lockdown procedure for such potential disruptions, and yes, there are rumors that Wikipedia's moving to a more editor-cetric model. But since Britannica has already moved to utilized some aspects of Wikipedia, I think the simple truth is both models have merit.

As Ainsley says, it's a very real phenom. Try this: Go do a search on "Belly dance" at Google. The one I just did shows a real truth -- the Wikipedia article on our dance is #2 in web site searches (for ref., past two videos, the #1 is IAMED's website). That means that a critical resource for people trying to learn about this dance can be edited by anyone.

Including, yes, YOU. And that's why I edit; it matters not how much I like or dislike Wikipedia, but it does matter to me that my dance have a good "public face".

I also know people think it's just the Wild West there. Here, let me link to two things that might change your perceptions of how Wikipedia works, just a little:

Talk: Belly Dance: This is where "the sausage is ground", i.e. if someone proposes or enacts a change some of us monitoring the page dislike, we can hash it out.

Revision history of Belly dance: Every change ever made to the article is tracked here, so we can see "at a glace" who's changing what, and quickly revert in case of errors or vandalism.

So yes, there is discussion, and tools for managing Wikipedia, that aren't obvious. People can change things, yes, but things tend to get changed back within a few hours. It used to be less, but I think we lost a few editors as the article is in a more-or-less stable mode...

So that's my case for Wikipedia.

I would never use it for a dance research and actually dislike it.

I'm shocked that people are coming into universities without learning what is/is not a reliable source.

Seems to me that should be taught when kids first write a research paper with citations, which usually happens freshman year in high school (and every year thereafter).

I wonder if schools just haven't caught up with including the internet? Are they still taking kids to the library and showing them the dewey decimal systam and the card catalogue?

I teach my kids that the internet in general is a terrible source. There are sites that are exceptions, and they're pretty easy to recognize and search for (google scholar, for instance).

No wonder so many adults forward those awful news and health e-mails and believe what they read in them!!

Originally Posted by Lauren_

I wonder if schools just haven't caught up with including the internet!

Well, yes, but it's not just schools.

At one of the Computer Security conferences I attended last year, geared towards Corporate types, the speaker talked about MySpace/Facebook etc. "behind the corporate firewall." Part of his speech, which he underlined with a show of hands that wern't too many in the room, was how clueless companies were about these sites, and management thereof.
These are (or were, as things are going...) people paid lots more than the average school offical to know about the latest situations on the 'Net. Yet they often don't, or rely, as you suggested, on rumors from friends.

But I'll be honest. I don't know how much to blame most folks. Compared to the pace of change during the 20th Century, the Internet changes rapidly. For example -- today, it's close to possible to watch nearly everything that shows up on broadcast TV on the Internet, legally and for free. That's a massive change that we as media consumers yet to even gasp the essentials of, yet one that didn't even exist 2 years ago.

So yes, I easily believe that many teachers haven't had a chance to really "check out" this Wikipedia thing, aside from stories from their co-workers and maybe an article or two. All the teachers I know aren't on the 'Net much, now that I consider it...

In defense of Wikipedia:

If one knows what Wikipedia is, it is a great tool. Not the ultimate truth, but a great way to get started.

Community-based authoring is a fairly important focus of research these days, and it is not just Wikipedia, with better tools, many more internet users can share their expertise; experience management is actually an old hat by now. People have done a lot of work to find methods to e.g. assess and improve the reliability of information, it's not as if developers are ignorant of the drawbacks of such environments.

I love Wikipedia! It has been a great source of information for me, and even though I have been sceptical of the approach at first, I am amazed by how well it works.

No one's bashing Wikipedia. It's an amazing thing.

Just not a reliable source -- though it can certainly lead you to one!

By and large, the information in community-based resources should be reliable. My guess is that Wikipedia is more trustworthy than many books. There are many books that do not go through any peer review when they are published, and frequently have an agenda behind them, whereas one can argue that the editing in Wikipedia is an effective form of quality control.

In case of doubt, I feel more confident relying on information where I can check the editing history and have convenient access to the sources used to back up information, rather than simply believe it's true because "I read it in a book".

By the way, the reason I started this thread is that I've seen a number of discussions on the net that have cited Wikipedia entries as sources for info they had. Not the belly dance article, but articles on other stuff. Unfortunately, some of those contained information that I knew to be incorrect, and others contained very slanted opinions rather than being fair and balanced.

In fairness, I have also found Wikipedia entries that were very helpful, containing appropriate citations to the sources they used. So yes, Wikipedia can be an excellent resource.

I just felt compelled to point out that it's an irregular resource, and like any other written work needs to be subjected to critical thinking and analysis rather than just assuming it's right. But yes, Steffi, I must agree with you that certain books are questionable as resources, as well.

Asim, now that I know you're one of the editors on the belly dance article, I'm feeling sorely tempted to enter my "origin of belly rolls" theory into it just to see how long it stays there before you find it and axe it! ..l;,..l;,

I use it but I click on the resoures and stuff and search in other areas to back it up.

Shira!!!

OMG, you mean to say that youtube, wikipedia and bellydancershotornot.com aren't the all mighty answers to all my bellydance questions and whatever they present aren't the truth, nothing but the truth, and nothing less than the truth?

I actually have to get off my fat a*s and study? maybe even GO TO CLASS to learn?

Originally Posted by *Shira*

By the way, the reason I started this thread is that I've seen a number of discussions on the net that have cited Wikipedia entries as sources for info they had. Not the belly dance article, but articles on other stuff. Unfortunately, some of those contained information that I knew to be incorrect, and others contained very slanted opinions rather than being fair and balanced.

In fairness, I have also found Wikipedia entries that were very helpful, containing appropriate citations to the sources they used. So yes, Wikipedia can be an excellent resource.

I just felt compelled to point out that it's an irregular resource, and like any other written work needs to be subjected to critical thinking and analysis rather than just assuming it's right. But yes, Steffi, I must agree with you that certain books are questionable as resources, as well.

Asim, now that I know you're one of the editors on the belly dance article, I'm feeling sorely tempted to enter my "origin of belly rolls" theory into it just to see how long it stays there before you find it and axe it! ..l;,..l;,

I only use wikipedia links if I know for sure that the information given is correct and can be confirmed elsewhere. Sometimes it's just "safer" feeling for people to go to wikipedia and read about something (given that the information is correct) than going to lets say "fundamentalfanaticreligion.com" even though the information given is the same.

I still think Colbert said it best :

The Word - Wikiality | July 31,2006 - Ned Lamont | ColbertNation.com

Enough people believe that, it's no surprise it's there. My teacher taught us that it was the baladi rhythm, and many other people refer to it that way. Ranya Renee's video cleared up the mystery - outside of Egypt, the masmoudi saghir IS called the baladi rhythm.....but the "baladi" music of Egypt uses many other rhythms.

Since I was mentioned, I will speak up. Of course I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source...duh...I have a mass communication background and I would NEVER cite a wikipedia entry in an article.

However, when the baladi issue arose, I was so confused that I did a Google search. In my desperate need to find the correct information, I ran into the Wikipedia page, which one undoubtedly runs into on page one of search results. For that purpose, I was using it to say, "look how many places have it wrong." I was using Wikipedia as a quick place to get general information. I could've named other belly dance Web sites that also had wrong info, but I felt it best to keep it general.

I think Wikipedia is great...don't know what raclette is? Wikipedia. Don't know how the term "conservative" came about? Wikipedia. Of course, it's not the be all and end all, but it is usually a great starting point for inquiring minds

Originally Posted by Nepenthe

Enough people believe that, it's no surprise it's there. My teacher taught us that it was the baladi rhythm, and many other people refer to it that way. Ranya Renee's video cleared up the mystery - outside of Egypt, the masmoudi saghir IS called the baladi rhythm.....but the "baladi" music of Egypt uses many other rhythms.

Hi gang!
Thanks for the mention, Nepethe... In fact (and this is not on my dvd because it would drive people bonkers), there is a kind of maqsoum that Egyptians refer to as "beledi"; but it seems to me that it's not exactly the same rhythm as what the Lebanese call beledi. And also, different drummers from Egypt will disagree as to what they will call a certain rhythm. Some people are fussy about distinguishing between masmoudi saghir and maqsoum, others may call them both maqsoum in a given context. But no one will call it malfouf. So there are some areas of overlap and some areas of separateness--no one should get too bothered by this, it's a folk tradition passed down outside of an academic conservatory setting, so it's not surprising that there is not complete consensus.

My Baladi dvd shows the rhythm building blocks, but it's important to remember that these are general patterns, not strict guidelines for the musicians. If you look close, you'll see the drummers not always sticking to the rhythm they are "supposed to be" playing in the video. .w.: The beledi is so improvisational that, I have to say, even though i've done a fair bit of homework on baladi, people should not take any one teacher (myself included) as the last resource on anything related to popular traditions of Arabic dance and music. I know that is frustrating... But even well-meaning and well-informed teachers make mistakes sometimes, even after they have checked with multiple sources. Then those mistakes get repeated over time by other well-meaning folks.

This is part of the nature of our field; the definitions are not always rigid, and folk wisdom is often handed down for generations, and sometimes the original facts may even get lost, or shift in meaning. In the West especially, people seem to want to pin down and easily package this material, when in fact, the more you open that Pandora's box, the more you see that it is too complex to pin down and explain in a tidy way. This what I have found in my own research, and it is one of the reasons I waited so long to make a DVD! :-) I'm happy if people use my dvds as a reference, to start the conversation. But there are even things in the DVDs that I know now, that are more complex than I had space to explain in that context, and I'm certain i'll uncover new things as I keep doing research. That's one of the reasons I'm doing teleconferences to support the dvds, so that I can flesh these topics out a little more when answering people's questions.

ranya renee

Bellydance New York City - Ranya Renee & Company - Belly Dance Classes and Peformances