Talk:Beginners Music Theory

Wikipedia Contributions

• The whole note is so named because in the most common time signature, one whole note lasts the entire measure. All other note values are named for the fraction of a whole note that they represent.

I tried to add the above information (not in so many words) to the parallel Wikipedia article. I was denounced in no uncertain times as promoting "Original Research" WP:OR and sent packing.

This is the kind of thing that makes experienced and knowledgeable people like me not want to contribute to Wikipedia. I teach music to young children. I'm always looking for simpler, easier ways to explain ideas to them. Young children often have no concept of fractions, but likening the whole and half notes to a "whole measure" or "half measure" seems to work well. Why would Wikipedia censor this idea?

More specifically, how can I convince the Wikipedian who censored this idea to accept it? Not as "true" of course - I have always honored the neutrality principle - but as "an idea" expressed by some authors writing about music theory. Is there a source for this, like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory By Michael Miller, that would be acceptable at Wikipedia, or am I just wasting everyone's time with something 'petty' like this? --Ed Poor 13:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ed, I am unfamiliar with the topic, but about "More specifically, how can I convince the Wikipedian who censored this idea to accept it?" Did you ask the Wikipedia participant on his/her talk page already that he should point you to the relevant guidelines/policies so you can also read it ? Convincing - I guess by discussing things out (e.g. on talk page or also usage of email). If you see there is no reasoning so far you can ask some other Wikipedians who contribute to that music page (see the version history) for their opinion. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive Editing

Hello Fellow Wikipedians, I've already put many hours of work into this project. I have a vision for how I want it to progress, so I'm hoping that this can be locked such that only I can edit it. (Naturally, I don't want my work to be messed up.)

Thanks, Donaldwpmiller (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)DonaldWPMiller 3:20 pm Eastern Standard Time on 7/8/2018

@Donaldwpmiller: Please see Wikiversity:Be bold. You can add this page to your watch list, and let us know if it is vandalized, but exclusive editing isn't an option. Just as you have built on the contributions of at least 15 other editors, you must expect and assume that others will build on your efforts. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No. I am developing a course that I began from scratch and which was abandoned by fifteen other people. There wasn't much there, except by someone who got angry at Wikiversity and quit. Donaldwpmiller (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)DonaldWPMiller 7:29 pm 7/8/2018.

The last person who worked on this project did so TEN YEARS AGO! Donaldwpmiller (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)donaldwpmiller 7:44 pm EST 7/8/2018

Moreover, I don't want anyone be "bold" with my work. I don't want someone messing up my work. Donaldwpmiller (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)donaldwpmiller 7:47 pm EST 7/8/2018

@Dave Braunschweig Well, unless you let me know, I can't tell whether or not you were helping me or letting me know how vulnerable my contributions are. I went by one of your projects and saw the excellent idea of having the multiple pages and the flashcards. Donaldwpmiller (discuss • contribs) 00:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)donaldwpmiller 8:13 EST pm 7/82018

@Donaldwpmiller: The idea of multiple pages comes from Wikipedia: Progressive disclosure. As the introduction to this resource already notes, the content needs smaller bites in order to be consumable. It also needed better organization, and likely still does, as there were multiple parts of different approaches intermingled. I've tried to break it down so that it is more manageable and easier to both edit and learn from. It may be that the homework activities can be combined with other lessons, or resequenced. They should certainly be renamed, as Lesson 1 and Lesson 2 aren't meaningful for anyone searching for content. Note that the external links to Google communities and Wordpress aren't consistent with Wikiversity:External links. Those resources are designed to draw users away from Wikiversity rather than bring them here and keep the content free and open. Whether or not this is helpful depends on your perspective. If it's helpful, you're in the right place. If not, I recommend just working on Google and Wordpress. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig I emailed you yesterday with some useful suggestions. You emailed me back stating that you don't really have much contact with the administrators. Now, this. I don't see how this Wikiversity project can be morally justifiable when it has mostly been a waste volunteer's time since its inception in 2007. Having everything well organized is all very well and good -- after the developer (in this case me) comes to grips with how it should be structured. Projects don't just occur fully made, unless someone has the mind of a Mozart.

Even though Wikiversity has been around for over a decade, it is still "under development." https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Courses "This article is about the development of Wikiversity. Please help Wikiversity by adding your ideas about what Wikiversity should become, or what it should do." That isn't my fault.

I might also point out that one of the successes Wikiversity has listed is its course in Troll Sock Puppets. Yet even though it is a short page in length it is still incomplete, with all five parts of Part Three and Advanced Trolling in Part 4 being incomplete. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/A_course_in_troll_sockpuppets

What's the point? Volunteers deserve to be warned in advance that Wikiversity is still under development and that the way in which it is structured, it never will be. (I thought of the idea of a locked project when I saw a discussion about it on an administrative page.)

Well, I haven't entirely wasted my time: I can make my own project, but Wikipedia gets the amount of traffic that justifies a good deal of invested time.

I've seen your page. You seem to be doing pretty well with your projects. So it is possible, for someone who is in a position to complete them, as you are.

Donaldwpmiller (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)DonaldwpMiller 11:01 pm EST 7/8/2018

@Donaldwpmiller: There seems to be some confusion here. You emailed me yesterday about Wikipedia. As I indicated in my response, "I have no administrative connection to Wikipedia. I'm an administrator at Wikiversity." Also above you have mistaken Wikipedia criticism as Wikiversity criticism and then Wikiversity traffic as Wikipedia traffic. Wikipedia and Wikiversity are separate sites and separate communities.

Wikiversity will always be under development. Although many users come and go, the vision Wikiversity started with in 2005 has remained consistent. It is a place to create and host free learning resources and learning projects. As long as there is something new to be learned, Wikiversity will be under development. And as long as there is another perspective to be shared, all pages are open to editing. Users are warned at the bottom of each edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

I'm sorry that your vision of Wikiversity is inconsistent with our reality, but this is a place where users collaborate on content and build on each other's contributions. If that's not what you are looking for or comfortable with, it's best that you find out now so you can invest your time elsewhere. Best of luck to you. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)