Silent Cinema Wiki?

[silentfilm]

I really have mixed feelings about wikis. They certainly can't be the end-all source of information. While it is easy to contribute, many times the people making the decisions about what to keep and what to throw out are not the experts. Most of the time that a committe puts something together, it is the general consensus that emerges.

Back when I started researching Raymond Griffith, just about every printed and online source had his birthdate, children, and his naval career incorrect. This was probably because most of his obituaries had this information wrong. After getting various birth and death certificates and his military record, I was able to write an article in Classic Images (probably one of the thrills of my life!) about him and now three years later most on-line sources at least have this information correct. Somebody nicely summarized my article on the IMDB http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0341586/bio. So while I don't get credit for the information, I'm very happy that so much mis-information has been fixed. But if you look in most published sources, they will still have Griffith's birthday wrong.

[Frederica]

I don't mean to sound excessively dismissive of the whole idea of wikis, but I think one of the skills real researchers have to learn is questioning standard reference sources, going back to original sources with a fresh eye, thinking things through for themselves. Wikipedia seeks to find a consensus ground that everyone can agree on for every topic; while that has a certain use, I'm just more interested in other formats where the goal is not to nail down truth but to reexamine it constantly, toss it around like a ball, get different perspectives. You know, like a chat board....

Or like History, Study of.

Fred

[Frederica]

One thing i heard from several people, though, is basically "i don't want to search IMDB or Wikipedia or whatever site, i just want the information." So basically people just want whatever they want delivered right to their computer of mobile phone or blackberry or whatever without having to figure out a site to go look it up or even bothering to google it. So they appear to have no interest in figuring out what is authoritative. And frankly, for most info it's not going to really be an issue when it's just usually a quick lookup like "who was in that movie i just saw".

Oh, I get it, these mirror sites are better tagged for information searching?

Once our wiki is up and running i wonder if they will let us quote it? I did just go make an edit on Norma's Wikipedia page and cited my page, and we'll see what happens. It does say there in bolded letters that you're not suppose to copy other websites so obviously someone is not following the rules. And in the footnotes already is Kally Mavromatis' Silent Star of the Month page, so there's already a web document cited. And the badly-researched An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Women in Early American Films: 1895-1930 by Denise Lowe, is quoted in several places
I did mention our issues with Wikipedia to anyone who would listen today.
greta

Which puts us back at the idea that because something is published in a book it is reliable. Wikipedia doesn't allow "original research," but they seem to have a fluid definition of "original."

You know, perhaps we are all getting het up for nuthin, here. We all know the problems with wikipedia and the imdb, but there is no reason why Frank's limited subject wiki has to function in the same way as those two very much more complex resources. Why don't we just wait until Frank gets it up and running, and then give it a try?

Fred

[Mike Gebert]

Well, I think that's one of my points. I really, really dislike the idea of one authoritative source passing itself off as the one authoritative source (and trying to guilt me into fixing its errors, even when it promptly re-errorizes my fixes). But wikis, as a format, are fine, that is, they're as good as what goes into them. So I hope Frank's wiki puts the material on the same subject on Wikipedia to shame. More competition, not the presumption of Wikipedia's supremacy, will produce better information out there.

[fhalden]

Mike -

I think your objection to the purpose of the wiki as an "authoritative source," is a valid one. I have changed the purpose statement from "Public Authority On," which might misrepresent the purpose, to "Online Silent Film Reference." This can more clearly be seen as a reference to sources cited, rather than a primary source. And thanks for your good wishes!

P.S. for everyone: You can view all versions of the page and every change made by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of any page. You can compare versions, and see exactly what was altered, and why. Changed information thus is not deleted, but reclassified as information subjected to change. That is, any information input into the wiki page is preserved.

Everyone probably already knows this, but I wanted to point it out, just in case.

Frank

[Mike Gebert]

In light of this, I did a little experiment.

There is a public figure who "everybody knows" is a heavy, heavy drinker. Considering the number of scandals attached to drinking that have been around him/her, it is interesting that NO mention of alcoholism appears on his/her Wikipedia page. So I put together a brief mention of the documented facts (not what "everybody knows" but what's been reported in the public record) and posted it in the health section of this person's biography, complete with clear and solid references (CNN, etc.)

Ten minutes later, it has been pulled because it supposedly was "only tangentially related to health." I think most of us who have had experience with chronic alcoholics regard it as more than tangentially related to their health.

Walter Kirn once wrote "A certain kind of job in journalism can only be kept if its holder, for the most part, refrains from doing it." In other words, doesn't spill the beans on the rich and powerful. Wikipedia, the supposed objective source, is plainly in the great tradition of American journalism when it comes to deciding which documented facts ought to be part of the authoritative internet source, and which ought to be swept under the rug.

And that is why I favor the unregulated, mostly wrong, wild west internet to anyone passing off the con of having the one truth online.

[fhalden]

And that is why I favor the unregulated, mostly wrong, wild west internet to anyone passing off the con of having the one truth online.

A couple of thoughts...

It's interesting that you chose not to name this public figure, thereby unilaterally restricting the information we can access in the converse of the manner in which the information was separated from the mystery figure in Wikipedia. How can I accurately assess your methodology if I can't examine your contribution directly, look at your sources, and assess their reliability myself?

Your addition should still be in the Wikipedia. It is easily accessible through the history page. A thorough reading of a Wiki page should include an examination of the history and discussion pages, for it is there that living controversies can, well, live.

I have not seen any claim of Wikipedia having "one truth" about anything.

Stating that you favor anything "mostly wrong," is not an argument I find persuasive.

If you feel that the addition of the information to the article is important, start a discussion page. If you do not feel that having that information included is that important, then it probably isn't.

If your information is fully cited and accurate, which I cannot speak to since I don't know the public figure you chose, then I would agree that it was wrong for someone to have redacted it.

Hypothetical: I'm a student in a "History of American Entertainment" course, and have been assigned to research the life of Jack Pickford. What's the best place to start? How much am I likely to find in the school library? Googling "Jack Pickford" gives me 64000 hits, but the first one is the Wikipedia page, which offers a fairly well footnoted article along with references to five print resources, each of which may contain bibliographies.

Google also gives me links to Imdb, and its citation-free "mini-biography," and many many other "wild-west style" resources.

Which one is most likely to produce fruitful source material?

These multiple sources are not mutually exclusive. Researching this topic would almost certainly include examining online and print references as well as web sites, at a minimum. Taking Wikipedia as "truth," is bad research on the part of the researcher, not a shortcoming of the reference work.

One other thought about your experiment. Citing journalistic resources is never optimal, as it is commercial writing, produced under a deadline, and not reliably subject to subsequent revision as circumstances might warrant. For an example, read the reporting of NYT reporter Judith Miller in the months before the Iraq war. It's still in the NYT archives, uncorrected. Journalism isn't scholarship. It is also hearsay, which removes it from the realm of first-order reliability. It is not subject to rigorous peer-review. In other words, it no more constitutes "truth," than anything else not subject to direct recording or personal eye-witnessing. That's why I agree with you that any Wiki does not present "one truth." One would be foolish to assert that it did. Knowing how to do proper scholarly research is the exclusive responsibility of each researcher.

I'm enjoying this discussion, but I'm not sure I'm saying anything new, so I'll solicit input on whether anyone else has any thoughts on this. I think that I can say that Mr. Gebert's opinons are extremely well thought out and argued. We'll probably have to agree to disagree. I once was told by a professor that academic arguments are so intensely debated because the stakes are so low. Still, I do greatly enjoy this kind of discussion.


Frank

[greta de groat]

I just notice linked to the blog entry on Theda Bara mentioned today that there was a link to a wiki:
http://silentfilms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Is this the wiki that was being discussed here that Frank wanted to start, or is it a different one? Does anybody know anything about it? Is this something we've talked about before and i've just forgotten?

greta

[misspickford9]

I just notice linked to the blog entry on Theda Bara mentioned today that there was a link to a wiki:
http://silentfilms.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Is this the wiki that was being discussed here that Frank wanted to start, or is it a different one? Does anybody know anything about it? Is this something we've talked about before and i've just forgotten?

greta

First my apologies for just NOW getting here. You guys rock hardcore (especially for getting my interest in Theda's complicated film history going). When I created my blog in March I originally wanted to put up my versions of silent articles from Wikipedia because they were in short being beseiged with vandals and morons left and right (especially the Valentino one). I can write a mean wiki article; but I cant copy edit or do the admin thing worth a damn. Especially on wikipedia as their admin ranks are greek to me.

However I remembered a muppet wikia and requested a Silent one from them. So thats what became http://silentfilms.wikia.com . However so far I've been the only one editing it. Which was just fine by me since I know I check my facts; but then it really is terrible because...at the rate of 10 hours an article you can see why there are so few. In fact many where the ones I wrote on Wikipedia. Of course they eventually told me I couldnt link the Silent Wiki so I just quit posting my articles on Wikipedia.

I'm not going to even pretend and say I read this whole long thought out thread but what I glanced at I agreed with. There are major pros and cons to Wikis...as there is to the internet as a whole. But what I like about the internet is that we can finally piece together the things that generations before could not. What makes me REALLY mad is when one reads a biography on a silent star, sometimes a very recent biography (*coughAnnaMayWongOliveThomasetccough*), and it has glaringly wrong information. These people get PAID to write these books, yet they cant get their facts straight. Facts that 5 minutes of googling can easily find. We as the internet generation have to undo all the disinformation.

And yes wikis can be edited by anyone; but I like to think with my mighty admin powers I can stop that at least on this one. The nice thing about wikis (when done properly) is they are the first thing a lot of people look at, and a lot of people turn to for information. Thats why I hate Wikipedia so much...they wont put the information but everyone goes there first anyways (compare the Olive Thomas and Thomas Meighan articles to before and after I edited them...you'll see what I mean). However a real respected Wiki on a subject can never be a bad thing...thus why I hold out hope for the Silent Films one.

Ya'll are definitly welcomed and encouraged to add there. I wanted to do a nice article on Gloria Swanson and one on Nita Naldi...but I have yet to find the time.

[Frederica]

I'm not going to even pretend and say I read this whole long thought out thread but what I glanced at I agreed with. There are major pros and cons to Wikis...as there is to the internet as a whole. But what I like about the internet is that we can finally piece together the things that generations before could not. What makes me REALLY mad is when one reads a biography on a silent star, sometimes a very recent biography (*coughAnnaMayWongOliveThomasetccough*), and it has glaringly wrong information. These people get PAID to write these books, yet they cant get their facts straight. Facts that 5 minutes of googling can easily find. We as the internet generation have to undo all the disinformation.

Wow, that's a nice looking wiki. Have you seen the silent comedians wiki at
http://www.silentcomedians.com/scdb/ind ... =Main_Page
You might want to contact Sal and link your wiki with his.

But about the information that "5 minutes of googling can easily find," before I disagree with you quite firmly on that issue, I guess I should ask what exactly you mean? The internet has certainly provided me with resources that have never been available before; I've said it once and I'll say it again, these resources have created a revolution in historical scholarship, and "revolution" is not too strong a word. However, though I've found quite good information on the internet, it's often surrounded by rivers of pure Bandini. Just because you find it through google doesn't mean it's right. You can google "Virginia Rappe" until you're blue, but I can tell you--unless I wrote it, it's wrong.

Like you, I gave up on wikipedia a while ago. The assumption with any wiki is that everyone contributing has equal knowledge and training, which as an assumption really sucks...oops...is fatally flawed. "I read a couple of books" does not an historian make, nor does it constitute rigorous peer review. Should I ever need neurosurgery about the last thing I want to see is my surgeon noodling about with sharp tools while reading wikipedia.

Those caveats aside (actually, those aren't caveats, they're canyons, but still...) I'm not philosophically opposed to the wiki concept--there is no reason why you cannot apply robust standards of scholarship to a wiki or to any other form of information dissemination.

Fred

[Frederica]

I guess it had to be said:

Professor Wikipedia: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1830262

[greta de groat]

There is an interesting article on the citation and "original research" problems with Wikipedia in Technology Review:

http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21558/page1/

greta

[ElectricPhonograph]

I know I'm uber-late saying anything, but where is the wiki Frank wanted to start? Hala, yours is great, just I'm curious. I'm a Muppet Wiki contributor by the way!!!!!!

[Salty Dog]

Wow, that's a nice looking wiki. Have you seen the silent comedians wiki at
http://www.silentcomedians.com/scdb/ind ... =Main_Page
You might want to contact Sal and link your wiki with his.

I think that Wiki has been taken down. At any rate, I cannot get the link to work, and I seem to remember a post on that forum about removing the Wiki some time ago.

[silentmovies742]

I only got to the end of the thread to realise that most of it was written years ago! Shame the idea didn't come off.