Hello,
I know that the pros and cons of pronunciation guides have been discussed before, but that was (AFAIR) before the Wiktionary project. I just had a new discussion with Arpingstone (if you can call this a discussion) about this topic:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arpingstone
It appears to me, that a guide how to pronounce a word would rather belong to the Wiktionary project than to Wikipedia. In Wiktionary the pronunciation appears to be a regular paragraph, while it is in Wikipedia in one per thousand articles. What are your opinions about this?
In the above example Arpingstone added a sentence to the Bremen article: "The 'Bre' of Bremen rhymes with 'clay'." I removed that sentence, mainly because it is at most a rough approximation of the correct pronunciation.
Mirko (Cordyph)
Mirko Thiessen wrote:
It appears to me, that a guide how to pronounce a word would rather belong to the Wiktionary project than to Wikipedia. In Wiktionary the pronunciation appears to be a regular paragraph, while it is in Wikipedia in one per thousand articles. What are your opinions about this?
We only need pronunciations in Wikipedia for strange words, typically for names (which won't appear in Wiktionary!). A SAMPA (or whatever we use) phonemic transcription should be fine, along with a link to [[SAMPA Chart]] (or whatever we use). For tricky Egnglish words (but not foreign names in general), we could also use a "foh-NETT-ik" spelling if it helps.
But the following is unnecessarily long, and as you note, less precise:
In the above example Arpingstone added a sentence to the Bremen article: "The 'Bre' of Bremen rhymes with 'clay'."
-- Toby
LD and I were talking about this at length. In attempting to sort out some basic rules for phonetic schemes, it occurred to us that though phonetics are important, they would tend to default to majority accents - which are irreconcilable ethno-political fodder.
English words act as symbolic placeholders which contain an idea within the shape -- just as Hanzi does. This, despite the fact that shape of English words of course, is entirely designed to represent the phonetic -- these shapes in and of themselves make no attempt at representing the thing itself --unlike Han ideographs.
So theres a tradeoff with each. English, though the lingua franca -- is not in the majority in terms of how its vowels are used. Its this difference between American English and the older and the more widespread Latin/Balto-Slavic vowel sounds that exemplifies the bulk of any disagreement. I mean, if you cant agree on what an "a" sounds like, you cant really continue.
This is where English, I think is in the minority, and will typically tend to reject like the metric system any attempt at mundification. So typically English sounds arent it - and neither are SAMPA eugh! (There was an interesting booktv talk on the origins of the American units system, btw -- and why today people in the US look at the metric system in a xenophobic and skeptical way)
I challenge anyone to show us here a scheme that is both easy to read (SAMPA eugh) and gives all the sonic description that these attempt to. In the end, the sonic descriptors are practically irrelevant when they get into too much detail -- regardless of how accurately you interpret the signs, youre still going to speak the foreign word with your particular accent. And its going to be wrong. The merits of the Roman alphabet are that its fairly standard, covers quite enough ground -- is modifyable in slight ways (ie pinyin, romaji.... SAMPA eugh!)
Still, where phonetic descriptions are used, some direction toward an international standard is a good idea.
-S-
Stevertigo wrote:
LD and I were talking about this at length. In attempting to sort out some basic rules for phonetic schemes, it occurred to us that though phonetics are important, they would tend to default to majority accents - which are irreconcilable ethno-political fodder.
For giving the pronunciation of English words to English speakers, I prefer abandoning phonemic transcription for morphophones. A morphophone is a concept such as .long-i., which doesn't specify what sound .long-i. is, only that it's the same sound as in "lie", "fight", "file", "fire", etc. To get a specific sound (either phoneme or phone), you'd have to specify an accent (a dialect or even idiolect) and possibly also a context (the surrounding morphophones). But the translation should be unambiguous for any combination.
For example, in transcribing "fire", we can give .f.long-i.r., and we don't have to argue whether it's pronounced /fai@/ or /fair/, because the rule is that .r. between a long vowel and the end of a word is /@/ for some people but /r/ for others, and that's just fine. (And for some people, it depends on how the next word begins, whether a vowel or a consonant, and that's fine too.)
Of course this has the same problem as a phonemic transcription, that ASCII isn't much up to the challenge of rendering .long-i., but we'll likely have this problem with essentially any solution.
I challenge anyone to show us here a scheme that is both easy to read (SAMPA eugh) and gives all the sonic description that these attempt to.
Well, I still prefer Evan Kirschbaum's ASCII IPA to SAMPA's. ^_^
-- Toby
Stevertigo wrote:
LD and I were talking about this at length. In attempting to sort out some basic rules for phonetic schemes, it occurred to us that though phonetics are important, they would tend to default to majority accents - which are irreconcilable ethno-political fodder.
English words act as symbolic placeholders which contain an idea within the shape -- just as Hanzi does. This, despite the fact that shape of English words of course, is entirely designed to represent the phonetic -- these shapes in and of themselves make no attempt at representing the thing itself --unlike Han ideographs.
So theres a tradeoff with each. English, though the lingua franca -- is not in the majority in terms of how its vowels are used. Its this difference between American English and the older and the more widespread Latin/Balto-Slavic vowel sounds that exemplifies the bulk of any disagreement. I mean, if you cant agree on what an "a" sounds like, you cant really continue.
This is where English, I think is in the minority, and will typically tend to reject like the metric system any attempt at mundification. So typically English sounds arent it - and neither are SAMPA eugh! (There was an interesting booktv talk on the origins of the American units system, btw -- and why today people in the US look at the metric system in a xenophobic and skeptical way)
I challenge anyone to show us here a scheme that is both easy to read (SAMPA eugh) and gives all the sonic description that these attempt to. In the end, the sonic descriptors are practically irrelevant when they get into too much detail -- regardless of how accurately you interpret the signs, youre still going to speak the foreign word with your particular accent. And its going to be wrong. The merits of the Roman alphabet are that its fairly standard, covers quite enough ground -- is modifyable in slight ways (ie pinyin, romaji.... SAMPA eugh!)
Still, where phonetic descriptions are used, some direction toward an international standard is a good idea.
I would basically agree with this analysis, complete with the hostility toward SAMPA where I find many of the supposed pronunciations to be counterintuitive. In many respects it really doesn't matter whether Bremen rhymes with layman or lemon as long as the listener knows what you are talking about. Any attempt to find the '''right''' pronunciation for a word is bound to end in failure. The best we can hope for is that ambiguities in a word like "lead" will be resolved.
Ec
Stevertigo wrote:
This is where English, I think is in the minority, and will typically tend to reject like the metric system any attempt at mundification.
I'm fairly confident that the majority of the world's English speakers use the SI system: UK, Australia, India, etc.
SAMPA isn't ideal. But it's a one-to-one correspondence with IPA, so at some future date when IPA can easily be used in Wikipedia, we could have some sort of script switch everything over.
I've explained elsewhere why DIY pronunciation guides are a bad idea.
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
This is where English, I think is in the minority, and will typically tend to reject like the metric system any attempt at mundification. So typically English sounds arent it - and neither are SAMPA eugh! (There was an interesting booktv talk on the origins of the American units system, btw -- and why today people in the US look at the metric system in a xenophobic and skeptical way)
Well, not *all* Americans think that, but a significant number of them do so that no polititions in office want to make the change.
I challenge anyone to show us here a scheme that is both easy to read (SAMPA eugh) and gives all the sonic description that these attempt to. In the end, the sonic descriptors are practically irrelevant when they get into too much detail -- regardless of how accurately you interpret the signs, youre still going to speak the foreign word with your particular accent. And its going to be wrong. The merits of the Roman alphabet are that its fairly standard, covers quite enough ground -- is modifyable in slight ways (ie pinyin, romaji.... SAMPA eugh!)
eugh? The way you use it, it sounds bad, but I don't see what's wrong with SAMPA. I don't see why we have the need for a "readable" system in the first place. If you mean "readable" as in "looks similar to English spelling", you're out of luck. Even the most complex system cannot match the utter irrationality of English spelling.
Still, where phonetic descriptions are used, some direction toward an international standard is a good idea. -S-
Exactly. And the other systems have been developed over several years by phonetics professors. We could never do better than them. Oh, yeah, we do have professors here. But it would still be hard to do well at making a complex system like this.
-LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
LD wrote:"eugh? The way you use it, it sounds bad, but I don't see what's wrong with SAMPA. I don't see why we have the need for a "readable" system in the first place. If you mean "readable" as in "looks similar to English spelling", you're out of luck. Even the most complex system cannot match the utter irrationality of English spelling."
Well, this is nice -- but you seem to have picked up my bad habit of talking out of both sides of my mouth... On the one hand your all for Sampa, on the other hand, you dont care if its actually *readable or not. Hmm. :)
Still, where phonetic descriptions are used, some direction toward an international standard is a good idea. -S-
LD: "Exactly. And the other systems have been developed over several years by phonetics professors. We could never do better than them. Oh, yeah, we do have professors here. But it would still be hard to do well at making a complex system like this."
Professors certainly are smart -- what with all that schoolin' and fundin' and stuff. Golly jee whiz, Ah wood'na daresay 'et we kin jus a'go changing da po'fessa's lang'age. Geez. Dat wood bee sum kinda fool 'be tawkin like dat dere. Go a'changin lang-widge! Haw, Haw. How d'zat happ'n?
-S-
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
There is an edit war in process at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism. Could someone please protect it? Things have gotten way out of hand! Unfortunately, I have taken sides on the issue, so I must request that someone else protect it. A mediator that is not Christian would also be appreciated.
-- Michael Becker
I have looked a little bit. Perhaps breaking the sexual scandals off into a separate article would help.
Fred
From: Michael Becker wikipedia@jumpingjackweb.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:13:40 -0400 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Contraversial edit war
There is an edit war in process at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism. Could someone please protect it? Things have gotten way out of hand! Unfortunately, I have taken sides on the issue, so I must request that someone else protect it. A mediator that is not Christian would also be appreciated.
-- Michael Becker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I did not check the content yet
But I would like to say something
172 took the decision to protect the page. After he himself reverted two times the content.
Comment on the talk page
BTW, one asked for protection for someone who isn't a Christian. Well, that's me. [[User:172|172]]
perhaps, but you should not protect it yourself if you are one reverting someone else job. That would be inappropriate. Anthere
:But it would be a worse idea to protect it with irrelevant, non-encyclopedic content posted in the article. 172
::this is '''totally wrong'''. Someone included in an edit war should not protect it. I am deeply concerned. Anthere
If this is OK and accepted with no comment, I guess I know what I will do next time I am in a conflict with a non sysop.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
No, its not acceptable. Bad form, Don't do it.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:40:04 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Contraversial edit war
I did not check the content yet
But I would like to say something
172 took the decision to protect the page. After he himself reverted two times the content.
Comment on the talk page
BTW, one asked for protection for someone who isn't a Christian. Well, that's me. [[User:172|172]]
perhaps, but you should not protect it yourself if you are one reverting someone else job. That would be inappropriate. Anthere
:But it would be a worse idea to protect it with irrelevant, non-encyclopedic content posted in the article. 172
::this is '''totally wrong'''. Someone included in an edit war should not protect it. I am deeply concerned. Anthere
If this is OK and accepted with no comment, I guess I know what I will do next time I am in a conflict with a non sysop.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, its not acceptable. Bad form, Don't do it.
Fred
I addressed the issue creatively :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Provocateur is a French word
From: Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 04:29:59 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Contraversial edit war
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, its not acceptable. Bad form, Don't do it.
Fred
I addressed the issue creatively :-)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Provocatrice is even better :-)
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Provocateur is a French word
From: Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 04:29:59 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Contraversial edit war
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, its not acceptable. Bad form, Don't do it.
Fred
I addressed the issue creatively :-)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
At 08:13 PM 7/22/2003, you wrote:
There is an edit war in process at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism. Could someone please protect it? Things have gotten way out of hand! Unfortunately, I have taken sides on the issue, so I must request that someone else protect it. A mediator that is not Christian would also be appreciated.
-- Michael Becker
I've protected the page. I have no interest in getting involved in the dispute, so consider me a third party.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
At 08:13 PM 7/22/2003, you wrote:
There is an edit war in process at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism. Could
someone please protect
it? Things have gotten way out of hand!
Unfortunately, I have taken
sides on the issue, so I must request that someone
else protect it. A
mediator that is not Christian would also be
appreciated.
-- Michael Becker
I've protected the page. I have no interest in getting involved in the dispute, so consider me a third party.
I am confused Dante.
I think that when I put the edit war header, that page was protected. Then why did Rmhermen edited it to remove the controversial content if it was protected ? And why did you need to protect it again ? Who removed the protection ??? Are the ones not included in the edit war authorized to edit it ? (I feel lost here...could not there be a log of protection/unprotection ?)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Well, most of our regular contributors are sysops, so can edit if we choose. I doubt protecting it was that wise.
Fred Bauder
http://wwww.internet-encyclopedia.org
From: Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Contraversial edit war
--- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com wrote:
At 08:13 PM 7/22/2003, you wrote:
There is an edit war in process at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism. Could
someone please protect
it? Things have gotten way out of hand!
Unfortunately, I have taken
sides on the issue, so I must request that someone
else protect it. A
mediator that is not Christian would also be
appreciated.
-- Michael Becker
I've protected the page. I have no interest in getting involved in the dispute, so consider me a third party.
I am confused Dante.
I think that when I put the edit war header, that page was protected. Then why did Rmhermen edited it to remove the controversial content if it was protected ? And why did you need to protect it again ? Who removed the protection ??? Are the ones not included in the edit war authorized to edit it ? (I feel lost here...could not there be a log of protection/unprotection ?)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In the body text is fine people, dont do it in lights.
-s-
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Since the edit war is between a regular editor and several sysops, is it ok to protect it, and that some people (not included in the edit war) go on editing it ?
I looked for guidelines about this, and found none. Just guidelines asking sysops included in the war to please not edit the page. I found nothing about what 'other' sysops "proper" (with quotes) behavior should be. What is the usual on the matter ? Is this ok that controversial content is removed when the page is protected (fortunately to be moved where it probably belongs in this case, but with no consensus with the one holding the generally-thought wrong opinion) ?
Why do we protect ? Is it the best choice in all situations ? Did a protect/unprotect war already happen ? Is it desirable ?
on a lighter note, do you like my new logo suggestion ?
http://meta.wikipedia.org/upload/c/ca/Tetra2%28L%29.png
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Well, most of our regular contributors are sysops, so can edit if we choose. I doubt protecting it was that wise.
Fred Bauder
http://wwww.internet-encyclopedia.org
From: Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Contraversial edit war
--- Dante Alighieri
dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
wrote:
At 08:13 PM 7/22/2003, you wrote:
There is an edit war in process at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism.
Could
someone please protect
it? Things have gotten way out of hand!
Unfortunately, I have taken
sides on the issue, so I must request that
someone
else protect it. A
mediator that is not Christian would also be
appreciated.
-- Michael Becker
I've protected the page. I have no interest in getting involved in the dispute, so consider me a third party.
I am confused Dante.
I think that when I put the edit war header, that
page
was protected. Then why did Rmhermen edited it to remove the controversial content if it was
protected ?
And why did you need to protect it again ? Who
removed
the protection ??? Are the ones not included in
the
edit war authorized to edit it ? (I feel lost here...could not there be a log of protection/unprotection ?)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
I looked for guidelines about this, and found none. Just guidelines asking sysops included in the war to please not edit the page. I found nothing about what 'other' sysops "proper" (with quotes) behavior should be. What is the usual on the matter ?
Sysops should generally not edit a page that has been protected due to a dispute, whether or not they were involved in the edit war to start with. I say "generally not" because of course there can be exceptions, for example rolling back to a version before the edit war might be useful in some cases, or attempting a one-shot temporary compromise.
Certainly, protecting the page and then having sysops continue a high-power-wizards edit war with each other isn't really helpful, if that were to ever happen.
When we wear our 'sysop' hats, we are supposed to be removed from editing. And protection is supposed to be very temporary in cases like this, just to allow tempers to cool, and only when really necessary.
--Jimbo
For the record, the page was unprotected immediately prior to my protecting it a few hours ago. That is not to say that it wasn't protected earlier, but just that when I went to look, it was NOT protected. It is now.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321