Wikipedia Double Bass Entry....?

[Bruce Lindfield]

I just chanced on this today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bass

some interesting stuff that I've seen contradicted around here - maybe some of our illustrious members should get in with some "errata"...

I've seen people quote this as the ultimate source of truth - whereas it is of course just what people say...

I did like the part that talked about the practical problems of playing the instrument and I know at least one of our members will disagree vehemently with this :


"Recently, violin/viol family instruments (including double basses) made of carbon-fiber laminates have become available. These instruments are supposedly nearly impervious to changes in heat and humidity and extremely resilient to the knocking about that occurs during transport. Unfortunately, the sound quality of a carbon-fiber bass is generally thought to be far inferior to that of a wooden instument."

[.matthew e wengerd.]

Unfortunately, the sound quality of a carbon-fiber bass is generally thought to be far inferior to that of a wooden instument."

That's why it says "generally." You don't have to "tell them" to change it. You change it and, should your ammendments be found to improve the quality and clarity of the entry, they will be kept.

Wiki is a pretty amazing aggregator of every participating individual user's knowledge base, but that's really all it is. That being said, it has been a while since I've read the DB entry.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Well... I did know all that, but I was just suggesting that some of our resident experts might want to go along there and put them right!

[olivier]

I like when it is said that the F-holes are parts of the DB. Like if you should keep a couple of spare ones in your gigbag

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lindfield

Unfortunately, the sound quality of a carbon-fiber bass is generally thought to be far inferior to that of a wooden instument."

Somebody must want to question this....

[.matthew e wengerd.]

click the "discussion" tab at the top and see what some of the people who have edited it say about it. You can also track the edits.

[Bruce Lindfield]

Originally Posted by .matthew e wengerd.

click the "discussion" tab at the top and see what some of the people who have edited it say about it. You can also track the edits.

I know how it works!!

I was just trying to get some of our resident TB DB experts involved!

[VTDB]

Not really pertinent to the DB entry but I remember reading about someone (can't for the life of me remember who it was) who searched his name on Wikipedia and discovered (to his dismay, I assume) that he had been dead for 10+ years.

Good idea, very wide-ranging but just prone to mis-information. I know the college circuit discourages using it as a reference source.

[Tbeers]

Originally Posted by VTDB

I know the college circuit discourages using it as a reference source.

It's sort of a hot debate these days, at least where I go to school. Some professors say it can be a good place to start research, though not a major source; others condemn its use entirely.

edit: I had no idea that "hoss bass" was another name for a DB. hahaha

[PaulCannon]

I think any articles that are at least two pages long and include (reliable) references are generally trustworthy. If the talk page doesn't have any major unsettled arguments in it, that's also a good sign.

Some of the shorter articles that don't get much attention, like this double bass article, are usually pretty lousy. I think there's a way to bring this article's attention to the Wiki community to get it updated and cleaned up.

[Bruce Lindfield]

I suppose the trouble is that you get articles written by people who have the time to do all this - whereas the real experts are busy doing it - like making/refurbishing DBs, playing them etc.

[kipmartin]

i've made several amendments to the entry. mostly to get the article to be less elitist about rockabilly, bluegrass, etc, some typos or bad grammar, and in one instance, to delete a thought that made absolutely no sense.

i have no problem saying that the carbon fiber basses are believed to be inferior as i know of none in major symphony or quartet use (but i could be wrong), in use as a prefered recording instrument in the jazz idiom, or as a favored instrument by any rockabilly or bluegrass players. its not inherently a BAD bass, but its "generally thought to be inferior".

finally, some sentences in the earlier versions of the article tried to paint the double bass as the only bass instrument in an orchestra. that isnt true.

i used capitalization in my edits, by the way.