Maybe you should ban me for vandalism as well - think about it, it could be cool. ) Yxifix ( talk) 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Reply I agree in principle with Yxifix (though let's not get un civil about it). All in all, you are very good admin, keep up the great work. 3 years and how many spoken articles are there? How many quality ones? How many of them you have created yourself? Have you listened to it at all? I guess you don't even care, when you have made no mentioning about it at all (!). Because of people like you Spoken Wikipedia is where it is. If you haven't realized I'm actually trying to help I'm not going to 'fight' with few people (or even 5, I don't consider this number 'a community' really) who made their 'consensus'. it's not 'while' anymore, right? Actually you really call a result of discussion of 2-3 people a "CONSENSUS"? LOL. I could say that was the consensus also.while. Just because of 'consensus' of 2-3 (?correct me) people who heard some rubbish synthetic voice and have no idea what proper synthetized speech can sound like - yes, I've seen the archives - and I've seen also the sentence ".while the technology is where it is." after listening to some awful robotized speech. I guess, having one example (not mentioning it had one of the best quality among all spoken articles) on whole Wikipedia would kill you. SCEhard T 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Reply Feel free to do so here.that's what I did, I felt free to do so. If you want to propose a change, please feel free to do so here, but don't add synthesized versions until it has been agreed on. It would be good to know, how many people are actually reading this discussion. ? Yxifix ( talk) 05:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Reply Current consensus is against synthesized speech (see the archives of this page, at top). Seems like Spoken Wikipedia is almost dead, current system obviously doesn't work and needs to be changed. Have a look and let me know what do you think. Hey folks, I've updated Marcus Aurelius article with a spoken version using synthetic voice. Ka-Ping Yee ( talk) 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Reply Cheers, Hassocks5489 ( talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Reply Wonderful! Thank you very much. My record is 58½ minutes for Peterborough! I'll have a thorough listen and let you know. Quick answers to some of your questions: those timings/pauses look ideal (I go for about the same when I make recordings) and I know some people have split longer articles into two or more sections, but personally I narrate and upload a whole article in one go, even if it is very long like this one. So this will be quite new for me as well! :-) In the normal course of events, a spoken article will be picked up for review a few days/weeks after it is submitted. I'm quite experienced at "doing" spoken articles, but I've never reviewed one before and have only listened to a few others the main driver and review-organiser of the project, Macropode, has regrettably not been seen on Wikipedia for some months (does anybody know where he is?). I'm downloading it now, and will listen over the weekend - then I'll do a review for you and give you some feedback. Has anyone tried to do anything like that? - Ka-Ping Yee ( talk) 12:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Reply Īlso: how may one request a review? Thanks! - Ka-Ping Yee ( talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Reply Hi, and thanks for contributing this recording. This made me wish there were a way to present the audio in separate sections so that the user could jump directly to sections of interest. I'd love to hear any of your thoughts on this approach, or any general feedback on the recording.Īlso, the article is quite long the audio comes to over 54 minutes. 1.5 seconds before each paragraph and image.I tried to stick to (roughly) the following timing: I just uploaded my first spoken Wikipedia recording it's for the article on Canada.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |