Let's rewrite this wikipedia article, Call for help! Options

[Kohlrabi]

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!

[Canar]

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.

[ringenesherre]

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

Cheers,
Peter

[Kohlrabi]

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

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

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

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

Thc Carlos Herrero link seems broken for me.

[yourlord]

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

[Apesbrain]

@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.

[saratoga]

Are there any other really bad audio wikipedia articles? Might be worth looking around to see if any others could use fixing up.

[Willakan]

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.

[saratoga]

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.

[saratoga]

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?

[Garf]

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

Don't forget to update the talk page too (which currently talks about how bad it is)

[saratoga]

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

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

[Canar]

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.

[greynol]

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

[Porcus]

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.

[Porcus]

Expect a PM by the end of the night.

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

[Canar]

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.

[Zarggg]

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

[db1989]

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.

You’ve affirmed what greynol asked, yet your second sentence supposedly elaborating does not follow at all.

Anyway:

Software must have some independant recognition outside their own existence…There needs to be some worldly relevance.

…all of which foobar2000 has in spades. Canar’s 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.

[Zarggg]

I misread and misunderstood his original statement. I thought it was in reference to outside sources, not the authoring of the Wikipedia article itself.

[db1989]

I interpreted it to be asking whether the program had to have been written by a major company, not the article, if that’s what you mean! And I don’t think either should be the case. Or that they are, in reality, i.e. when WP’s rules are applied sensibly.

[greynol]

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

[zima]

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