Frank Zappa - The Wiki

[Chris]

Excellent point....you're Absolutely Right.

[mik]

Also, if you're talking about albums, you must also consider the different versions of many of them. I mean, WOIIFTM was completely re-done for the CD. Frank remastered Peaches for Hot Rats.

[Barry]

Also, if you're talking about albums, you must also consider the different versions of many of them. I mean, WOIIFTM was completely re-done for the CD. Frank remastered Peaches for Hot Rats.

Welcome to the forums Mik!
I agree with your above assertion, but I also think it is the kind of fine-grained stuff we shouldn't be focusing on at this point. Let's concentrate on the basics for now (tracks, players). We can always go back later and add secondary info like Background info, Conceptual Continuity and yes: Versions.

[Chris]

So the place I've stuck those factoids is okay? I wanted to make sure before adding more that I wouldn't be beaten about the face and neck.

[Barry]

So the place I've stuck those factoids is okay? I wanted to make sure before adding more that I wouldn't be beaten about the face and neck.

Well you put them in the discussion area, whereas it would've been quite okay to put them in the article area right from the start. If you check the wiki you'll note I've moved them from the former to the latter for that exact reason.

I'd say, unless the stuff you're about to add is highly controversial (or you just want a second opinion or something) just add that stuff to the article itself right away. You'll then have a fellow editor busting your balls soon enough anyway.

I kid, I kid!

[emdebe]

... I see many words bouncing around: structure, content, file system, database, book, encyclopaedia, ... I guess we'll have to agree on what exactly all this means... If we want to go after a shared goal, we must agree on one, ... and we need a shared language... Am I right, or am I suffering from a hangover too much?

... we need to start in a more generalized manner, and see how things are getting filled out before we go into such picky nesting. I'm assuming it will be up to contributors where they find it most appropriate to stick their prose, so we'll have to wait until a very basic framework begins to get fleshed out before we can acknowledge which subject headings are being used and which can be omitted.

Presenting too many rules, guidelines, abbreviation legends, etc. right from the get-go will discourage writers from contributing.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. At this point setting too many guidelines, or too much focus on "terms" and substructure will lead us to lose focus on the bigger picture -- and scare off potential contributors as well.

Things can be narrowed down later, depending on, again, where people seem to be putting their text. If we get too narrow too quickly, we'll just have a mess, due to the... enforcemental and interpretational problems inherent in the subject names.

OK, let's assume for a moment that we go for "structure A".

The next couple of weeks we will create, say, 500 webpages... There will be 350 hypertext links between these pages... Already about 50 other websites will have created multiple links to many of these pages...

Then, all of a sudden, we see the blue light, and... we decide to go for "structure B"...

Now please explain to me what will happen then...

I think we need a more structured approach, because we are discussing a number of different things simultaneously… I see many Matryoshkas – you know, these Russian wooden (nesting) dolls – opening, and successively smaller ones pop-up (please, don’t give us a Matryoshka vs. Babooshka discussion). Before we know it, we won’t be able to see the forest for the trees (I’m not really convinced that this is correct English/American – but you will get the point I guess/hope)…

[Barry]

OK, let's assume for a moment that we go for "structure A".

The next couple of weeks we will create, say, 500 webpages... There will be 350 hypertext links between these pages... Already about 50 other websites will have created multiple links to many of these pages...

Then, all of a sudden, we see the blue light, and... we decide to go for "structure B"...

Now please explain to me what will happen then...

It is highly unlikely that we will produce 500 webpages in two weeks. Even so, supposing we do, what matters in terms of other people linking to them is the URL that points to those pages. Meaning that, even though the content of a page may change considerably, this does not mean the url needs to change as well -- I'd go one further and say nine out of ten, there will be no need for url restructuring.

Further more: I don't care if url-structure changes every so often at this stage. What is important ultimately is to obtain a firm wiki. What is very unimportant is to have us worrying about other sites linking to our orphaned url's. Never lose sight of the old "trees from the woods" adagio.

Lastly: we have a "structure A" and we'll stick by it. If any changes to that structure are made, it will most probably be in the form of additions - not radical modifications.

I appreciate your concern about substructure-issues emdebe but really, it is an irrelevant issue here and now. At this point, we need but worry about top level structure. I think with the current "table of contents" we've got it down pretty good. Sub-structure will, in the future, become an issue, but it is not an issue now.

IMHO...

[emdebe]

...If we want to go after a shared goal, we must agree on one, ... and we need a shared language...

... It's all about finding people (writers, editors, researchers, illustrators, ... whatever) who are motivated enough to spend a serious amount of their precious time to document the life and times of a single person... People who are willing to find a C O N S E N S U S about what to write and how to write it...

Lastly: we have a "structure A" and we'll stick by it.

Nice "consensus" we have here... That's exactly 2 people tellng all the rest to bugger off... But hey, I don't want to spoil your party! Am I the one who needs a spanking?

[emdebe]

Just a question - I might not understand the whole thing well, but maybe your answers will help. I think the first thing would be to decide the structure - before all the other thing starts. And my main question is: can this project WANT IT ALL? I mean, we do have a discography better than one could imagine (Fzlyrics), we do have a bootleg-page better than one could imagine (Zappa-patio), we do have a "comments on albums" page better than one could imagine (Kill Ugly Radio) - so will we copy-paste them? Is is worth? Won't that mean that the "mother-pages" or the new "result pages" (one of them) will die, and the other will survive? Why kill old, updated, goodworking, fine places? Or: why make new pages with lot of works, when (in another case) wont be succesful, because of their older, better, more wellknown brothers? Or: why copy the Wiki's biography? Will there be two from now on? The new one updated, corrected, the old one forgotten, left there without any update and addition? Dont misunderstand me , I'n not agains it, I just want to see clear in copying, doubleing things, or the real goal of this project. Or am I totally wrong? So if it would be a central source, in most cases it would be enough (as it seems to me) a collection of external links, maybe with some notes added to it: clarifying, describing them to visitors... So, what do you say? Did I misunderstood all?

... Would you want me to add data to the wiki? Or do you want to add links from the wiki to UM? Or do you want to copy all the data from UM into the wiki somehow?

Once upon a time, I mumbled something about writing a book (on FZ, that is). Then somebody threw in the notion of an encyclopedia (did someone say "encyzapedia"?). Then I started talking about "one single, complete-and-accurate-as-it-can-be, access point to all things FZ (like www.zappa.com should have been)"... And now, everybody seems to be confused...

OK, let me (try to) straighten this one out...

PHAZE I - In the beginning there will (probably) be just a "central access point". The "Zappa Wiki Jawaka" (at http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/) will contain a number of pages with some comments and a lot of links to existing websites that we appreciate.

PHAZE II - After a while (this can be weeks or months), we can 1) start writing original texts, and 2) start integrating texts from existing websites in the "Zappa Wiki Jawaka". Writing original texts will not be the problem (I hope). Integrating texts from existing websites COULD be a problem, if the person or persons involved in those existing websites are reluctant to give-up their site. We don't want two versions of the same things hanging around (it would only lead to more confusion). We, the "Wikipedians", must - to quote SOFA - "start the better party…, and once folks find out it is a better party, they'll want to attend"... For the BIG EGOS amongst us: the "Zappa Wiki Jawaka" thing can keep a trace of who did what when, and especially who contributed what and when (at least, I think so)...

PHAZE III - Finally, when all the bits and pieces are in place (encyclopedia-wise, see PHAZE II), we can start thinking about writing a book... Or multiple books (all with the same bits and pieces)... My guess is, that every contributor will have his/her own view on how the ideal "Table of Contents" might look like...

Does this make some kind of sense at all?

[Bálint]

Thank you for your answer.

I still have questions (Sorry... :-) ):

1. Wiki:

- Will this project go inside wikipedia? If YES, than it brings a few question: its an enciclopedia, and as this, it would only allow to publish authorised stuff. That means: no lyrics, no albumcovers, no interviews from UniMuta, no FZ-pictures - unless we get the authorisation of the original photographer - and Gail Zappa. Otherwise they will delete it. This seems to be a heavy stuff...
- If its inside Wikipedia, than we should not choose other name for it than simply  FRANK ZAPPA - since its not a book, not an independent stuff, just a part of an enciclopedia, and if we want people to find it, we cant make it harder to find for them with some strange (but otherwise good) name.

2. Wiki-like:
- ...or will it be an independent page, using the Wiki-structure? To me it seems to be a problem, since the Wiki is found out mostly for inner links - so if its an independent stuff, it seems (to me) that it would be much easier to make a new page, a center, in normal html, with links to the now existing Great Ones, without copying them. As FZlyrics does it: he just uses the "notes and comments" of arf.ru, and so on.

How do you see this?

B

[Barry]

- Will this project go inside wikipedia?

No. It will be hosted exclusively at wiki.killuglyradio.com

- ...or will it be an independent page, using the Wiki-structure? To me it seems to be a problem, since the Wiki is found out mostly for inner links - so if its an independent stuff, it seems (to me) that it would be much easier to make a new page, a center, in normal html, with links to the now existing Great Ones, without copying them. As FZlyrics does it: he just uses the "notes and comments" of arf.ru, and so on.

Your question is basically: why create our own content when we can link to other sites. Well what if that other site disappears off the airwaves (for whatever reason), or becomes outdated? Also: the advantage of the wiki-format is that it allows for a democratic editing process whereby anyone can join in. This means no need for one SuperAdmin that has to coordinate/update/edit/add everything (look at Zappa Patio, Arf.ru - they do it this way; look at Nieve's old site, Corneliussen's old site: they USED to do it like that and have basically moved on to other things since then  - see what I mean?). It's really about community-efforts versus LoneWebmaster-efforts...

Hope that answers your questions

[Dunk]

Oh no! Another Imaginary Disease  
Don't panic.  I am working on a cure right now.

[Bálint]

I see now!

Thank you!

(Slowlyunderstanding) B

[Barry]

Nice "consensus" we have here... That's exactly 2 people tellng all the rest to bugger off... But hey, I don't want to spoil your party! Am I the one who needs a spanking?

I'm certainly not telling you to bugger off.

My point was simply that our basic/main structure appears to be rock solid, and we should start adding pages. I mean what can you add to that table of contents that's not already there?

The rest of the content will (hopefully) grow organically.
Here's an example:

- Our hypothetical (unedited) page is Freak_Out.
- I come in and post track-names to it, nothing more.
- Someone else comes along and decides to add the Players.
- Both of us have not "formatted" anything; we've just put our text there.
- Number three comes along and decides it's time for some formatting,
so he edits the page and adds headings - appropriately: "==Tracks==", "==Players=="
- Etc etc until the page is fully formatted and has info under each heading.
- But wait! Now number 187458 comes along and decides he will turn the names of all the players into links, leading to their own page in the wiki! Some of those pages, he notes, already exist, other pages don't yet.
- So now number 187458 thinks: not only will I make that link on the Freak_Out page; I'm also going to add some info to that musician whose page wasn't edited yet.
- etc etc etc...

[SOFA]

What is important ultimately is to obtain a firm wiki.

Now THAT is something with which Frank would most certainly agree! And at my age, I too appreciate them when they occur...

(sorry)
(( Jeez, Barry, why tempt me that way???))