Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Audio Wiki: Anyone interested?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
July 31, 2005 6:57:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

It's been a long time since I posted around here, but this seems a good
place to vibe out people's opinions on this. I'm thinking of setting up
an audio wiki site aimed at everyone from beginners to professionals.
I'm willing to do the administration and get it started, but I obviously
can't write an entire encyclopedia by myself, which leads me to two
questions:

1.) Is this something that you (the reader) would actually use? In the
long term, I'd like the wiki to be a resource for just about everything
audio, from recording formats to transducer theory to people to... well,
you get the idea.

2.) Is this something that rec.audio.pro readers would be willing to
contribute articles to?

Please let me know your opinions. I'm less likely to try and make this
happen if no one seems interested or if everyone thinks it's a silly
idea.

Thanks,
-Pete Pollack
wiki@bignoisybug.com

More about : audio wiki interested

Anonymous
August 1, 2005 3:48:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:57:59 -0500, in rec.audio.pro Peter L. Pollack
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>It's been a long time since I posted around here, but this seems a good
>place to vibe out people's opinions on this. I'm thinking of setting up
>an audio wiki site aimed at everyone from beginners to professionals.
>I'm willing to do the administration and get it started, but I obviously
>can't write an entire encyclopedia by myself, which leads me to two
>questions:
>
>1.) Is this something that you (the reader) would actually use? In the
>long term, I'd like the wiki to be a resource for just about everything
>audio, from recording formats to transducer theory to people to... well,
>you get the idea.
>
>2.) Is this something that rec.audio.pro readers would be willing to
>contribute articles to?
>
>Please let me know your opinions. I'm less likely to try and make this
>happen if no one seems interested or if everyone thinks it's a silly
>idea.
>
>Thanks,
>-Pete Pollack
>wiki@bignoisybug.com

Would it be based at wikipedia.org, or is this too general a site, or
would it be AES based, (without the need for a credit card for access)

There seem to be dozens of forii (forums) around. The whole internet
system is quite fragmented and confusing, just like me

Think I'll go and wash my brain in a bucket of water


martin
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 4:54:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <q6hqe1tdvhc9cnc60966v3tbcfhitpkctu@4ax.com>,
martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk says...

> Would it be based at wikipedia.org, or is this too general a site, or
> would it be AES based, (without the need for a credit card for access)
>
> There seem to be dozens of forii (forums) around. The whole internet
> system is quite fragmented and confusing, just like me
>
> Think I'll go and wash my brain in a bucket of water
>
>
> martin

Martin,

It would be based on the same software or on something similar. My goal
would be to turn it into a sort of "mega-FAQ," where much of the
fragmented (and frequently dissenting) audio information on the internet
could be housed in one convenient location.

If someone wanted to look up the origins of the Decca-tree, they could
get a collection of articles on history, example recordings, how-tos,
recommended gear, etc. If someone wanted to know who Malcolm Chisholm
was, they could get articles on the studios he worked for, the
recordings he made, and perhaps links to his writing. If someone wanted
to know how cables affect sound, they could get articles on the
scientific aspects, user experience, and perhaps a controlled debate on
the topic. I can forsee this site covering everything from mic
techniques to storage mediums to playback devices to acoustics and to
newbie questions, etc.

The strength in a wiki rests on the contributions of its users. I'm
neither smart enough nor idle enough to do the whole thing by myself,
but if people think it could be a cool resource, I'd love to be the
midwife in the thing's birth.

-Pete Pollack
wiki@bignoisybug.com
Related resources
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 11:26:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

This is a fantastic idea, I'd be very interested in reading. Will need
some serious promotion though to get it off the ground. I'd be happy to
help out on that side of things.




Peter L. Pollack wrote:
> In article <q6hqe1tdvhc9cnc60966v3tbcfhitpkctu@4ax.com>,
> martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk says...
>
> > Would it be based at wikipedia.org, or is this too general a site, or
> > would it be AES based, (without the need for a credit card for access)
> >
> > There seem to be dozens of forii (forums) around. The whole internet
> > system is quite fragmented and confusing, just like me
> >
> > Think I'll go and wash my brain in a bucket of water
> >
> >
> > martin
>
> Martin,
>
> It would be based on the same software or on something similar. My goal
> would be to turn it into a sort of "mega-FAQ," where much of the
> fragmented (and frequently dissenting) audio information on the internet
> could be housed in one convenient location.
>
> If someone wanted to look up the origins of the Decca-tree, they could
> get a collection of articles on history, example recordings, how-tos,
> recommended gear, etc. If someone wanted to know who Malcolm Chisholm
> was, they could get articles on the studios he worked for, the
> recordings he made, and perhaps links to his writing. If someone wanted
> to know how cables affect sound, they could get articles on the
> scientific aspects, user experience, and perhaps a controlled debate on
> the topic. I can forsee this site covering everything from mic
> techniques to storage mediums to playback devices to acoustics and to
> newbie questions, etc.
>
> The strength in a wiki rests on the contributions of its users. I'm
> neither smart enough nor idle enough to do the whole thing by myself,
> but if people think it could be a cool resource, I'd love to be the
> midwife in the thing's birth.
>
> -Pete Pollack
> wiki@bignoisybug.com
Anonymous
August 1, 2005 3:34:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Peter,

> The strength in a wiki rests on the contributions of its users. I'm
neither smart enough nor idle enough to do the whole thing by myself, but if
people think it could be a cool resource, I'd love to be the midwife in the
thing's birth. <

I think this is a great idea, but someone must be responsible for the
accuracy of the information. There is a HUGE amount of misinformation and
pseudo-science related to audio out there now. So no matter how
comprehensive your site is, if people can't count on its accuracy I see no
point in bothering.

--Ethan
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 8:13:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Peter L. Pollack" wrote:

> In article <q6hqe1tdvhc9cnc60966v3tbcfhitpkctu@4ax.com>,
> martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk says...
>
> > Would it be based at wikipedia.org, or is this too general a site, or
> > would it be AES based, (without the need for a credit card for access)
> >
> > There seem to be dozens of forii (forums) around. The whole internet
> > system is quite fragmented and confusing, just like me
> >
> > Think I'll go and wash my brain in a bucket of water
> >
> >
> > martin
>
> Martin,
>
> It would be based on the same software or on something similar. My goal
> would be to turn it into a sort of "mega-FAQ," where much of the
> fragmented (and frequently dissenting) audio information on the internet
> could be housed in one convenient location.
>
> If someone wanted to look up the origins of the Decca-tree, they could
> get a collection of articles on history, example recordings, how-tos,
> recommended gear, etc. If someone wanted to know who Malcolm Chisholm
> was, they could get articles on the studios he worked for, the
> recordings he made, and perhaps links to his writing. If someone wanted
> to know how cables affect sound, they could get articles on the
> scientific aspects, user experience, and perhaps a controlled debate on
> the topic. I can forsee this site covering everything from mic
> techniques to storage mediums to playback devices to acoustics and to
> newbie questions, etc.
>
> The strength in a wiki rests on the contributions of its users. I'm
> neither smart enough nor idle enough to do the whole thing by myself,
> but if people think it could be a cool resource, I'd love to be the
> midwife in the thing's birth.

It sounds very interesting actually. I've only just been reading up about
wikis and it's clever stuff.

Only trouble I see is how do you stop self-appointed idiot 'experts'
spoiling the whole thing by simply disseminating their ignorance of actual
engineering reality ?

The audiophool fraternity come to mind. Like the 'directional speaker cable'
lark and ' toobs sound best' !

Graham
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 10:02:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in
message news:YfidnUtSx82X33PfRVn-og@giganews.com


> I think this is a great idea, but someone must be
> responsible for the accuracy of the information. There is
> a HUGE amount of misinformation and pseudo-science
> related to audio out there now. So no matter how
> comprehensive your site is, if people can't count on its
> accuracy I see no point in bothering.


Case in point is the www.wikipedia.com site. At one point it
had an article promoting the technical superiority of vinyl
over digital. The article had the usual BS we've all heard
about missing sound between the samples, etc. However, it
did get fixed pretty soon.
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 1:05:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<lubaloo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122906417.114551.221770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> This is a fantastic idea, I'd be very interested in reading. Will need
> some serious promotion though to get it off the ground. I'd be happy to
> help out on that side of things.

As long as it doesn't turn out that whatever your pre-misconception you can
find an answer to suite !

geoff
Anonymous
August 2, 2005 11:35:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <uaednaLe1Ocg2XLfRVn-iQ@comcast.com>, arnyk@hotpop.com
says...
> "Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote in
> message news:YfidnUtSx82X33PfRVn-og@giganews.com
>
>
> > I think this is a great idea, but someone must be
> > responsible for the accuracy of the information. There is
> > a HUGE amount of misinformation and pseudo-science
> > related to audio out there now. So no matter how
> > comprehensive your site is, if people can't count on its
> > accuracy I see no point in bothering.
>
>
> Case in point is the www.wikipedia.com site. At one point it
> had an article promoting the technical superiority of vinyl
> over digital. The article had the usual BS we've all heard
> about missing sound between the samples, etc. However, it
> did get fixed pretty soon.

Well, that's the key. If the wiki becomes a popular community resource,
it will be self-correcting. If it's just me yanking on my own keyboard,
it will probably go down in flames fast. Still, anything worth doing
may be difficult at first, right?

I wouldn't advocate any wiki for "how-to" brain surgery, but if it can
gain a reputation for pointing people in the right direction or giving
them something to explore, that's not a bad thing.

-Pete Pollack
wiki@bignoisybug.com
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 5:24:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 04:13:20 +0100, Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Peter L. Pollack" wrote:
>
>> In article <q6hqe1tdvhc9cnc60966v3tbcfhitpkctu@4ax.com>,
>> martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk says...
>>
>> > Would it be based at wikipedia.org, or is this too general a site, or
>> > would it be AES based, (without the need for a credit card for access)
>> >
>> > There seem to be dozens of forii (forums) around. The whole internet
>> > system is quite fragmented and confusing, just like me
>> >
>> > Think I'll go and wash my brain in a bucket of water
>> >
>> >
>> > martin
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> It would be based on the same software or on something similar. My goal
>> would be to turn it into a sort of "mega-FAQ," where much of the
>> fragmented (and frequently dissenting) audio information on the internet
>> could be housed in one convenient location.
>>
>> If someone wanted to look up the origins of the Decca-tree, they could
>> get a collection of articles on history, example recordings, how-tos,
>> recommended gear, etc. If someone wanted to know who Malcolm Chisholm
>> was, they could get articles on the studios he worked for, the
>> recordings he made, and perhaps links to his writing. If someone wanted
>> to know how cables affect sound, they could get articles on the
>> scientific aspects, user experience, and perhaps a controlled debate on
>> the topic. I can forsee this site covering everything from mic
>> techniques to storage mediums to playback devices to acoustics and to
>> newbie questions, etc.
>>
>> The strength in a wiki rests on the contributions of its users. I'm
>> neither smart enough nor idle enough to do the whole thing by myself,
>> but if people think it could be a cool resource, I'd love to be the
>> midwife in the thing's birth.
>
>It sounds very interesting actually. I've only just been reading up about
>wikis and it's clever stuff.

Wikipedia.org has been around for a few years now. There's the idea
of expanding the depth of it with audio entries, but NOT instead of
having a separate audio wiki, but in addition to it. It could be
interesting to see how the two evolve.

>Only trouble I see is how do you stop self-appointed idiot 'experts'
>spoiling the whole thing by simply disseminating their ignorance of actual
>engineering reality ?

The fact that it is easily changable is countered by the fact that
it is easily changable BACK.

>The audiophool fraternity come to mind. Like the 'directional speaker cable'
>lark and ' toobs sound best' !

I was just looking on a few things such as the discussion page of
the Neal Boortz entry in wikipedia.org. It appears his page is often
defaced or vandalized, and there's one or two people there on constant
alert (it's apparently set up to email them every time something is
changed) to revert it back when that happens.

>Graham

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 8:06:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ethan Winer wrote:
> Peter,
>
>
>>The strength in a wiki rests on the contributions of its users. I'm
>
> neither smart enough nor idle enough to do the whole thing by myself, but if
> people think it could be a cool resource, I'd love to be the midwife in the
> thing's birth. <
>
> I think this is a great idea, but someone must be responsible for the
> accuracy of the information. There is a HUGE amount of misinformation and
> pseudo-science related to audio out there now. So no matter how
> comprehensive your site is, if people can't count on its accuracy I see no
> point in bothering.

I read a really interesting article recently about the publishers of the
Encyclopedia Britannica slamming Wikipedia over the potential accuracy -
and lack thereof - of the information. It was pointed out a couple
specific errors that had been found in Wikipedia that were fixed within
24 hours, while some more significant errors discovered in Britannica
remained unresolved, not only through a printing, but on the web version
as well. Check out some of the links you get from
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=wikipedia+britannic...

Point is, accuracy is always a question... even in published books, some
information may differ according to opinions of the author(s) and/or
editor(s). Wiki has the advantage that inaccuracies can be easily
fixed, and differing opinions can ALL be published along with supporting
arguments and evidence, not just those that the editor agrees with.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0531-1, 08/02/2005
Tested on: 8/2/2005 9:06:09 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 2:05:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <WoXHe.101014$%K2.42482@pd7tw1no> soundy@moltenimage.com writes:

> I read a really interesting article recently about the publishers of the
> Encyclopedia Britannica slamming Wikipedia over the potential accuracy -
> and lack thereof - of the information. It was pointed out a couple
> specific errors that had been found in Wikipedia that were fixed within
> 24 hours, while some more significant errors discovered in Britannica
> remained unresolved, not only through a printing, but on the web version
> as well.

> Point is, accuracy is always a question... even in published books

The difference is that books remain stable, so while the book itself
may never be corrected, the errors can be promulgated. If an on-line
fact miraculously changes overnight, there's no audit trail. Someone
reading an article yesterday can have different knowledge than someone
reading it today, and both can cite the same article as their
"correct" source.

This leads to the "I just read that article. How could I have missed
this?" syndrome.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
August 3, 2005 6:22:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I see no problem with
> presenting two differing opinions on a topic, as long as it is clear
> that they are just that. In fact, I think it could be a strength.

A: 2+2=7. B: no, you are mistaken: 2+2=4.

This is not a matter of opinion. People who have taken the trouble to
study mathematics know who is correct (subject to a few things that are
very rarely relevant but will, inevitably, be brought up to cloud the
point). Presenting both as opinions to people who have not studied
mathematics is not something that should be supported.

Now translate the above to audio babble on the subject of cables,
valves, analogue/digital, etc... The value of a good audio site is
going to lie in the editing of 99% of the nonsense that is
enthusiastically discussed on most audio sites. [A brief scan of
audiogon, audioasylum or some of the other audio usenet groups should
confirm that 99% is not a wildly inaccurate figure although, of course,
I have done no proper research to justify the actual figure.] Do you
want to do this? If not, take a close look at almost any other audio
site except rec.audio.pro (which is something of an exception in the
field) and ask yourself if you want the wiki to express this set of
information.
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 9:04:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 3 Aug 2005 10:05:07 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

>
>In article <WoXHe.101014$%K2.42482@pd7tw1no> soundy@moltenimage.com writes:
>
>> I read a really interesting article recently about the publishers of the
>> Encyclopedia Britannica slamming Wikipedia over the potential accuracy -
>> and lack thereof - of the information. It was pointed out a couple
>> specific errors that had been found in Wikipedia that were fixed within
>> 24 hours, while some more significant errors discovered in Britannica
>> remained unresolved, not only through a printing, but on the web version
>> as well.
>
>> Point is, accuracy is always a question... even in published books
>
>The difference is that books remain stable, so while the book itself
>may never be corrected, the errors can be promulgated. If an on-line
>fact miraculously changes overnight, there's no audit trail. Someone
>reading an article yesterday can have different knowledge than someone
>reading it today, and both can cite the same article as their
>"correct" source.

On wikipedia.org there IS an audit trail, just click on History and
you can see how a page looked after EVERY change.
To cite such an article, you would use both the article name and
version (or date and time of the version).

>
>This leads to the "I just read that article. How could I have missed
>this?" syndrome.

That happens on http://cnn.com all the time. Last evening they
showed a firey plane crash with a headline indicating 200 passengers.
Later it said that all 300+ passengers survived.

-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
August 3, 2005 10:07:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <mit1f11u1h5ibvlnhu5qscvnks7ea1s66a@4ax.com> ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net writes:

> On wikipedia.org there IS an audit trail, just click on History and
> you can see how a page looked after EVERY change.
> To cite such an article, you would use both the article name and
> version (or date and time of the version).

That's kind of neat, but then it becomes your responsibility to decide
what's correct. At least if you quote from a published book, while you
may be wrong, at least you have a citation. This goes along with my
saying that a computer doesn't make things easier, it just changes how
we work.

> That happens on http://cnn.com all the time. Last evening they
> showed a firey plane crash with a headline indicating 200 passengers.
> Later it said that all 300+ passengers survived.

And the next day, it didn't say anything. <g> Newspapers run
corrections, too.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
August 4, 2005 12:16:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospam_bradley@frontiernet.net> wrote in message

> On wikipedia.org there IS an audit trail, just click on History and
> you can see how a page looked after EVERY change.
> To cite such an article, you would use both the article name and
> version (or date and time of the version).

So you can find every possible answer to the question and take your pick ?

geoff
!