IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Let's rewrite this wikipedia article, Call for help!
Kohlrabi
post Jun 21 2012, 10:04
Post #1





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1150
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



I just surfed the web a bit regarding audio and video quality metrics and the like, when i stumbled over this wikipedia article. It is completely baffling. Not only that the overall quality of the writing is not very good and fit for an encyclopedia, it is filled with wrong claims and suggestive statements.

I say HA should try to improve this article, or better yet, do a complete rewrite! We can use our own HA wiki to draft our article, and push the final version to wikipedia after it is deemed finished. I think this is far better and easier than nitpicking and fixing all the statements in the wikipedia article proper. We cannot expect visitors here to be able to participate in the discussions and understand ToS#8 if articles like this are out there!


--------------------
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 21 2012, 15:50
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



I think that pouring effort into that article, especially from a community that is as polarized on the topic as Hydrogenaudio, is probably going to fall flat. Perhaps, if you really want an alternative, make a "Sound Quality" article on the HA wiki.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ringenesherre
post Jun 22 2012, 10:19
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 20-April 12
Member No.: 99037



QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 21 2012, 16:50) *
I think that pouring effort into that article, especially from a community that is as polarized on the topic as Hydrogenaudio, is probably going to fall flat. Perhaps, if you really want an alternative, make a "Sound Quality" article on the HA wiki.


We already took care of it smile.gif

Cheers,
Peter
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kohlrabi
post Jun 22 2012, 12:20
Post #4





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 1150
Joined: 12-March 05
From: Kiel, Germany
Member No.: 20561



Great, this reads much better now. Kudos to the editors. biggrin.gif


--------------------
It's only audiophile if it's inconvenient.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Jun 22 2012, 13:53
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 4491
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Jun 22 2012, 07:20) *
Great, this reads much better now. Kudos to the editors. biggrin.gif


Agreed about the upgrade in verbiage. Greatly improved but not controversial.

Thc Carlos Herrero link seems broken for me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
yourlord
post Jun 22 2012, 16:09
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 254
Joined: 1-March 11
Member No.: 88621



I'm too lazy to create a wikipedia account to fix these, but here are a few needed fixes..

1,411,200 kilobits per second

should just be

1,411,200 bits per second

and

where audio is stored as a series of quantized audio samples spaced a regular intervals in time

should be

where audio is stored as a series of quantized audio samples spaced at regular intervals in time
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Apesbrain
post Jun 22 2012, 17:01
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 499
Joined: 3-January 04
From: East Coast, USA
Member No.: 10915



@yourlord, fixed now.

The sources should be revisited since the first one is behind a password and the other two don't seem to be related to the topic.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 22 2012, 17:44
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 5169
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



Are there any other really bad audio wikipedia articles? Might be worth looking around to see if any others could use fixing up.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Willakan
post Jun 22 2012, 20:57
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 19-May 12
Member No.: 99992



QUOTE (saratoga @ Jun 22 2012, 17:44) *
Are there any other really bad audio wikipedia articles? Might be worth looking around to see if any others could use fixing up.


If you're feeling brave, the Audiophile article is absolutely atrocious.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 22 2012, 21:05
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 5169
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Willakan @ Jun 22 2012, 15:57) *
QUOTE (saratoga @ Jun 22 2012, 17:44) *
Are there any other really bad audio wikipedia articles? Might be worth looking around to see if any others could use fixing up.


If you're feeling brave, the Audiophile article is absolutely atrocious.


I mean technical articles. I doubt anyone really cares what the audiophile article talks about.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 27 2012, 05:48
Post #11





Group: Members
Posts: 5169
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



I noticed the rather awful Audio quality measurement page is proposed for merger with the much, much better Audio system measurements page. Maybe someone familiar with wikipedia's protocols could move anything useful from quality measurement into Audio system measurements and then delete the former?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Jun 27 2012, 08:37
Post #12


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4886
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (Kohlrabi @ Jun 22 2012, 13:20) *
Great, this reads much better now. Kudos to the editors. biggrin.gif


Don't forget to update the talk page too (which currently talks about how bad it is)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Jun 27 2012, 17:18
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 5169
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



Sorry, here is a link to the page in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_quality_measurement
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 27 2012, 17:20
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



Well-done, guys. After my heated argument with some random editor regarding the foobar2000 page (see the Talk page if you really want to get into it), I was feeling a bit disenfranchised with Wikipedia. You guys have reassured me that yes, Wikipedia still has value and is not primarily a trolling platform.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 27 2012, 19:48
Post #15





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10345
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



WTF does notable mean? Software cannot have a dedicated page unless it was written by a big company?

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 27 2012, 22:30


--------------------
Breath is found in plots and DR figures.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jun 27 2012, 19:57
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Canar @ Jun 27 2012, 18:20) *
regarding the foobar2000 page (see the Talk page if you really want to get into it)


*facepalm*

I mean, if the guy had just benchmarked his interpretation against the practice in the field (compare the Audacious, XMMS or even Winamp articles ...)

Expect a PM by the end of the night.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Porcus
post Jun 28 2012, 09:54
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 1995
Joined: 30-November 06
Member No.: 38207



QUOTE (Porcus @ Jun 27 2012, 20:57) *
Expect a PM by the end of the night.


Oh well, I see you've got enough of them already.


--------------------
One day in the Year of the Fox came a time remembered well
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Jun 28 2012, 15:12
Post #18





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3373
Joined: 26-July 02
From: To:
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (Porcus @ Jun 28 2012, 01:54) *
Oh well, I see you've got enough of them already.
Sorry, my inbox gets full from reports and stuff. Cleared a spot for you.


--------------------
You cannot ABX the rustling of jimmies.
No mouse? No problem.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post Jun 28 2012, 16:05
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 27 2012, 14:48) *
WTF does notable mean? Software cannot have a dedicated page unless it was written by a big company?

Pretty much, yes. Software must have some independant recognition outside their own existence to justify an article on Wikipedia.

Basically, they don't want it to turn into a giant repository of articles about every little piece of software because the creators thought it would be cool to have an article. There needs to be some worldly relevance.

This post has been edited by Zarggg: Jun 28 2012, 16:08
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jun 28 2012, 19:53
Post #20





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (Zarggg @ Jun 28 2012, 16:05) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 27 2012, 14:48) *
WTF does notable mean? Software cannot have a dedicated page unless it was written by a big company?
Pretty much, yes. Software must have some independant recognition outside their own existence to justify an article on Wikipedia.
Youíve affirmed what greynol asked, yet your second sentence supposedly elaborating does not follow at all.

Anyway:
QUOTE (Zarggg @ Jun 28 2012, 16:05) *
Software must have some independant recognition outside their own existenceÖThere needs to be some worldly relevance.
Öall of which foobar2000 has in spades. Canarís point, which was spot-on, was that crying non-notability in this case was purely reflexive and ridiculous when approached by someone not wearing comedy-sized procedural goggles. Sure, the page ended up being improved with (what I presume are) a few sufficiently impressive-seeming citations, but the argument need not have happened in the first place.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zarggg
post Jun 28 2012, 20:12
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 569
Joined: 18-January 04
From: bethlehem.pa.us
Member No.: 11318



I misread and misunderstood his original statement. I thought it was in reference to outside sources, not the authoring of the Wikipedia article itself.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Jun 28 2012, 20:22
Post #22





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5275
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



I interpreted it to be asking whether the program had to have been written by a major company, not the article, if thatís what you mean! And I donít think either should be the case. tongue.gif Or that they are, in reality, i.e. when WPís rules are applied sensibly.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 28 2012, 20:24
Post #23





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10345
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



The concern is that large software companies have a huge advantage when it comes to third-party coverage.


--------------------
Breath is found in plots and DR figures.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
zima
post Jun 29 2012, 12:58
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 136
Joined: 3-July 03
From: Pomerania
Member No.: 7541



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

It seems we're not important or significant enough ;( ...or are we? I recall some HA members being involved, from time to time, in "old media" reports about audio quality - maybe some of those mentioned HA, maybe such links would be enough?

Also, many codec and general audio software authors seem to make HA their web hub of sorts - you presumably recognise its value and importance in the field. So, maybe, a mention of this hypothetical recognition, somewhere on the home sites of your projects, could be in order... could be enough, seeing that many of those codecs and software do have Wiki pages - if large portion of them would recognize HA, wouldn't that affirm its significance in the field?

Then some articles not only send to HA in #External_links, this one also quotes Sebastian's and Roberto's archived Public Listening Tests ...which were, after all, sort of done "here", sort of under HA umbrella.

(and I did wonder recently what the "fb2k might not meet notability" was about...)

This post has been edited by zima: Jun 29 2012, 13:16


--------------------
http://last.fm/user/zima
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th December 2014 - 17:02