HRWiki talk:Spoken Articles

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Need?: reply)
(question)
Line 2: Line 2:
Hey there.  I notice this article on Lapper's page and I read the wikiproject thing too.  I've got a couple of questions and concerns. {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey there.  I notice this article on Lapper's page and I read the wikiproject thing too.  I've got a couple of questions and concerns. {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 +
:So what's the consensous for spoken articles at the moment? So good or no good? I don't think it's a good idea to leave it in limbo. {{User:Shwoo/sig}} 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 +
===Scope===
===Scope===
According to [[Special:Statistics|this]] page, there 1586 pages containing legit content.  That is a huge undertaking.  Do we realize how many takes just one article would require? {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
According to [[Special:Statistics|this]] page, there 1586 pages containing legit content.  That is a huge undertaking.  Do we realize how many takes just one article would require? {{User:Invisible_Robot_Fish/sig}} 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:31, 10 January 2007

Contents

Problematic

Hey there. I notice this article on Lapper's page and I read the wikiproject thing too. I've got a couple of questions and concerns. I R F 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's the consensous for spoken articles at the moment? So good or no good? I don't think it's a good idea to leave it in limbo. Shwoo 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scope

According to this page, there 1586 pages containing legit content. That is a huge undertaking. Do we realize how many takes just one article would require? I R F 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be recorded (for example, I don't see the point in recording transcripts, which comprise a huge part of a lot of articles). If we do go forward with this, featured articles and other high-visibility articles would be a good place to start. Trey56 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A good idea. Transcripts are probably not the best to record right now, if ever. Featured articles may be a good place to begin. — Lapper (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic

This isn't like making the bible on tape every article changes so quick it makes my head spin. Are we going to record every time an edit or addition is made to a page? I R F 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not, for small changes. Also, it's rare for an important page to change dramatically. Once a representative version of an article is recorded, it wouldn't need to be updated for some time. Trey56 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Professionalism

I seriously doubt that we have any professional voice actors in our midst. If it is done less than great, if will make the whole wiki seem less profession / credible. Almost youtube'ish. I R F 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a valid concern, and for this reason I personally don't plan to record many. I do think we have some good readers (for example, Shwoo), but it's tricky to evaluate people and say "You're good enough to record one" and "You're not". Trey56 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if a recording is deemed less than acceptable, it can be redone. Everyone recording needs to make sure they annunciate clearly, splice cuts cleanly, and record according to Wikipedia standards. — Lapper (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Need?

Why do this. Text readers are readily available. My collegue Adam is blind and he has a screen reader that reads his computer out loud and does so quite well. In fact that is one of the reasons why pages should adhere to xhtml 1.0 strict in matters like using <em></em> instead of <i></i> beacuase of how the browser would read it. I R F 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with IRFs last point. What are we trying to accomplish with this project? The majority of people who would need to use this feature have other ways to accomplish the assumed goal, and are more likely to use those ways rather than a link at the bottom of a page. But the question at hand for me is: What are we trying to accomplish with this project? - ISTC 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a very good point. Since it seems unlikely that many disabled people would actually be benefited from this, the main reason to do it is for the enjoyment of the people recording and anyone who wants to listen. But this purpose may very well be outweighed by the effort and space concerns. Trey56 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
According to Spoken Wikipedia, the benefited would include the reading impaired, the English impaired, as well as the visually impaired. Of course it's "fun" to record articles, but the benefits are not nonexistant. — Lapper (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
But that is reinventing the wheel. There are already free text readers for that very purpose. I R F 15:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Another point made on that page is, "Visually-impaired users can use screen readers, of course, but with current technology, they may not be as accurate as a human vocal performance. " Perhaps you should bring it up at #wikipedia or on their WikiProject talk page to get more informed opinions. — Lapper (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I don't care what 'kepdia does. They can do their own thing. But I do know this. I am currently taking online classes at University of Phoenix and since all my textbooks are in pdf form, I have a text reader read them....So I'm learning while I doing laundry. I used something like Natural Reader and although not perfect, it sounded quite human like (as opposed to wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess). I R F 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had the pleasure of a reader that doesn't stumble over strange words, names, abbreviations, etc. You can write rules to it, of course, but it would still play as "Wouldn't you preFER a NIce game OF chESS?" — Lapper (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this project is where we need to be focusing our efforts right now. We should instead focus on improving the overall quality of our non-toon articles, which currently are not at a level of professionalism that would warrant having them recorded. — It's dot com 16:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that when I was reading Stinkoman out loud some of both the sentences and organization were awkward. I entirely agree that effort should go first to polishing the articles, and this certainly should happen before they're recorded. As a side note, reading articles aloud (no recording necessary) proves to be a good litmus test for identifying what needs to be improved. Trey56 16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree here, I think some of our articles could go through some significant improvement. -- Tom 17:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So what we basically need here is a rating system, that can be compared to Wikipedia's "Good Article" rating. Some, non featured articles, will be evaluated and be put on a list of good pages to have a spoken version of. The start of this project, in my opinion is to clear out the already featured articles for grammar, structure and other parameters. Any article tagged as "good" by a committee can be spoken. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
After a brief discussion, it's come to my attention that this project is probably superfluous. As Dot com mentioned, our articles (particularly our FAs) are definitely not to the standard we would like them to be. Elcool and I joint-propose to make it a point to increase the exclusivity of the status of Featured Article, as "interesting" articles probably shouldn't be the line we draw. On a related note, why do we have the clause regarding "not compromising previous work" if the previous work has not been identified on a basis of excellence? — Lapper (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Space/bandwidth

Right now, typical file sizes are on the order of 1MB. If few people are actually going to use this, is it worth the vast amount of memory it would consume? Trey56 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe either It's dot com or Tom would not hesitate to let us know if the project grows so vast that we become stretched for server space. I don't think it's an issue that needs to be immediately addressed. — Lapper (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, now before we get to far into this project is the best (well before we started would have been better, but that's not an option now) time for this type of issue to be discussed, it ties back into what articles are we going do this for? How many of them are there? Why do it for some but not for others if our purpose is to help those visually impared and not just to hear ourselves talk (figuatively and litterally), would they be less interested in the lists, or in the explanations and references? These issues all will end up determining how much space this project will take up, and thusly what the value/expense is of doing such a project. We are not a corporation with donors paying specifically for the space of such a project, so we as a community need to decide if this is really a valuable addition to the wiki, or if its not the best use of our resources (server space, time, money, etc.) - ISTC 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In respective answer to your questions, (1) Presumably only featured, high-traffic, and articles of significance. (2) There are many. Possibly in the low/mid hundreds. (3) Presumably we will do it for all articles, but we have to start somewhere, and it's not going to be on running gags pages, etc. It would be best to do long-standing articles rather than lists. In addition, I believe you're going to far with this "expense" thing. As the aphorism goes, "Wiki is not paper", and although it may be taking up space, I believe it is the responsibility of those who can access such server information to inform us if it's gone too far. As for "if it's a valuable addition", such a discussion is taking place right now. There seem to be opinions that it's "pointless", but if it is indeed, you needn't contribute. This project will not hinder your ability to go right along editing pages. — Lapper (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not my intention to say this is pointless, but rather an attempt at gathering information on something going on with something I care about. To say that those with concerns about it should just "stand down" and go about editing, I would say that this is simular to the creation of a page that someone may find "pointless" and wish to delete: Just because someone finds something interesting, or wishes to add it to the wiki, does not mean that it would be what's "best" for the community and thus there should be opportunity for all involved to express their concerns and discuss the subject. Otherwise the argument that I percieve you to be making would constitute anyone being able to add any page just as long as it could somehow be linked to H*R or the Wiki, but I somehow don't believe that is what you propose. - ISTC 16:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
You're correct, of course. My choice of wording was sub-standard. What I meant to get across was that in a similar instance, I, myself, did not fully approve of having a subtitles project, but the fact that the community approved although I may not have did not make me attack the project, but rather go about my way without contributing. What you said especially emphasizes that my wording was wrong due to my being a fervent deletionist and would most certainly not ignore a non-satisfactory page. What are your further concerns? — Lapper (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm basically just expressing the same concerns as Trey and IRF, especially relating to bandwidth and server constraints. In addition I'd like for us to have a procedure in place before we started, because I honestly don't see a need as such with this wiki for such a program, but I'm ok with it existing if everything is in place for all to see and there is a firm plan of action for how, why, what, when, etc. As of right now I don't see a defined project, and as such I see it being ripe for rife discord and the potential for lots of reverts of substandard recordings, and other potential issues. - ISTC 16:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (please see this discussion for good example of aforementioned discored) :-)

I'm not sure whether space would be an issue, but I'm almost certain that bandwidth is an issue. Every 1 MB file that gets uploaded and then repeatedly downloaded eventually starts to add up to real dollars and cents that we have to pay. — It's dot com 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools