Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'crowdsourcing'.
Found 1 result
I do a ton of work on Wikipedia (under this same username) and off and on I've noticed that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concertinacould really use some improvement. The current article is written rather densely, and mixes major details up with a lot of minutiate not really applicable to the layman. I think the article doesn't really do good service to the general reader who might see concertina in a movie, or see it mentioned in the liner notes of an album, and wonder what the creature is all about. I imagine we have at least a few Wikipedia editors here, and a larger number of folks who are familiar with the body of published books and articles discussing the instrument, and others who might have access to good images (current or historical photos and drawings) that we can use to improve the article. I have my own ideas, but I'd invite y'all to take a quick look at the article as it stands and let me know your impressions. Where is it too dense for a layman? What huge facts/issues does it miss? What detailed material might be better used in a separate article ("English concertina"?) linked off from this main overview page? Remember, we can only include facts which are attested in published works. "Original research" is expressly forbidden on Wikipedia, since it's a "tertiary source", so we can't submit things like a personal analysis that X movie really brought a lot of players to the instrument, unless we can cite a particular published book or article that makes that direct observation. So we really need to "clear our heads" of personal knowledge and focus on documented facts which we can cite. Hopefully with the combined smarts of folks here, we can get the article into a easy-to-digest yet informative piece with clear images to inform readers wanting to know more about our passion.