Wikipedia talk:Spoken articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Help fix these links

The article link should be of the format [[:Image:FileName.ogg|ArticleName]] at Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Click through the link, and on the file page, replace the contents (except for the copyright notice, which is usually {{gfdl}}) with the following text:

{{Spoken article entry|
file_name= 
|title= 
|time= 
|file_size= 
|user_name= 
|date= 
|accent=
|}}

• File_name should be of the form: name_of_file.ogg
• Title refers to the title of the actual article.
• Time is the length of time in minutes and seconds of the article, for example: 12:34
• File_size is the size of the file, for example: 12.6 MB
• User_name is the name of the user who read/uploaded the file, for example: Willmcw
• Date should be a link to the revision that was read, for example: 2005-04-18
• Accent is the regional accent of the reader. See Regional accents of English speakers for the possibilities.

[edit] Marking of articles

Currently it reads:

• Bolded article titles refer to featured articles.
• Articles also marked with have been featured, with an audio link, on the Main Page.

But for consistency with existing practice, shouldn't it be the other way around? The Featured articles page has an image for spoken articles, and bold for appearance on the main page. I think this page should follow the established tradition, or else it can get kind of confusing. — Timwi 13:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree, and was considering implementing the change last week, but decided it was too much effort at the time. Joe D (t) 08:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Info

So is there a good reason to have the same information listed "three" times on the page? --CGP 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the information in the table should be merged into the sections. That leaves the info listed just twice (once by topic, and once automatically and alphabetically). — Chameleon 00:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is practically a farce

Spoken articles should only be used for disabled individuals such as blind people etc... However I would really, and I mean really reconsider the people who are chosen to record and used to read out the articles, because so far they are all below average, with slurring, mis-reads and weird accents. You can't expect just anyone to do these with their computer mics (resulting in reverb and irritating interference), but I would strongly advise using professionals in audio-visual or audio-engineering instead. Piecraft 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Low-quality work is better than none at all. Once all our featured articles are recorded, professional readers with professional equipment can re-record things for improvement. If any volunteer, that is. — Timwi 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well going by current wikipedia standards, there is suuposedly no room for low-quality work. Therefore I still see no purpose for this at all, unless real professionals or individuals who know what they're doing are contributing or wrking alongside this project - which at the moment I do not see. But then again, this is typical to expect such a hypocritical system in Wikipedia. Piecraft 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think Wikipedia must have started with a "Low-quality work is better than none at all" philosophy. But it's only due to the massive amount of contributions and edits from enthusiastic users that the quality and quantity of organization and content has come to the point where someone would say that the "current wikipedia standards" demand high-quality. I think read that the people in charge of Encyclopedia Britannica believe Wikipedia is doomed in the end because its peer review system is too random and free. I think it's exactly because Wikipedia trusts in its users' ability to spread, add, and improve, that Wikipedia has come to this point. Thus, I agree that low quality is better than none at all. If you find something that's low quality, hopefully that means you or someone else will decide to improve it one day.

Which brings me to this suggestion or request - is there a page that could collect and award the spoken files for their high quality? And when I say high quality, I don't just mean sound quality, but I am talking about the quality of the speaker (so maybe it should collect names of users who are highly regarded for their spoken files). I'll go right ahead and give props to the spoken file for Rachel Green. I think the person who recorded this is a podcaster that has his own site at http://www.techonthefly.com/techonthefly/drupal/, but isn't particularly involved with Wikipedia. The first file he uploaded advertised his "techonthefly" site within the file, so someone (User:MarkSweep) cut that part out. In any case, the quality of the speech is very good. Kenumay 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Directlinking for directdownload

Hi,

i added the hear it links because im from germany and would like to use this files to learn speaking and hearing english but my downloadmanager can only catch directlinking files and noone who have a site before. For the actually status i must write an extra ripper :| I hope the use of this file is ok for wikipedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.210.136 (talk • contribs) .

I've reverted the new format because it would make the page too unwieldy if it was applied to all the spoken articles. If you need special formatting for your download manager, I'd suggest registering an account and using your User Page to make the formatted list. Thanks -SCEhardT 03:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

look at the german page. You have there a more better overview as here! It likes bad is uninformativ and stupid for downloadmanager or people who want not have a second page to hear it. You must click 2 Links to hear it!