1. Instead of reading an Encyclopedia article from the screen would it be
nice to be able to lean back and have it read. to you by a synthetic
voice? I believe that such programs already exist. Would anything need to
be done to the articles so that such programs would work?.
. My computer has such a text to voice program in Dragon
NaturallySpeaking 7 but it does not want to work for me. Perhaps it is
not compatible with XP.
2. While it would not be part of Wikipedia would free lessons in foreign
languages be a good idea? Once you get started you need to get practice
using the language and Encyclopedia articles might furnish such practice.
Is anybody interested?
Just daydreaming.
Merritt L. Perkins
I don't know what operating system other people have on their computers.
I am using Microsoft XP home edition. It has a text to voice program with
a voice called Microsoft Sam that can have the speed and volume adjusted.
It is intended to be used to check your work for mistakes after you run a
spell check. In this way you can catch mistakes that you have overlooked
while reading the text.
. The voice on Dragons NaturallySpeaking 7 is Jennifer and the speed,
pitch, and volume can be adjusted
I have a huge 21 in. monitor and still find text a little hard to read.
If a person is totally blind he would not be able to use a computer
because he could not tell he is doing. If his eyesight is somewhat
impaired it can be a big help.
I know the program is on my computer but I don't know how to use it.
There must be instructions someplace but I don't know where. Probably
most operating systems have such a program and have had for years
. If you want a program to read Encyclopedia articles or e-mails you
probably already have the program on your computer, just learn how to use
it.
As far as reading German is concerned it should be much easier than
English.
Having Encyclopedia articles read by a human voice would make the files
so large that it would be impractical. They would be many times the size
of the printed text. How many people remember when a monitor screen was
divided into to 30 rows and 80 columns of cells and a cell would hold one
character. Characters were perhaps 5 wide by 9 high and defined by an
ASCII number. Now word processing programs are much more complicated.
Merritt L. Perkins
I think Wikipedia could further open up to external interaction if it
provided simple means to interact with the data. For instance, serving
pages as XML or even plain text could be one of these ways. That way,
third parties could allow users to check out Wikipedia content easily.
Also, updating the data via simple methods, such as XML strings sent via
POST following the same DTD would allow third parties to also integrate
this feature.
You may argue that simple data posting would tempt vandals--a determined
vandal can just as easily hack the system as it stands right now,
writing a script to send zillions of regular HTTP POST requests isn't
such a big feat. Formalizing the data in a DTD on the other hand could
tempt serious third parties to join the game.
Is there anything like this already implemented and I haven't been able
to stumble across the documentation?
Gutza
Hello (improved google translation)
A French-speaking site http://www.ebabylone.com/
chose to use us like source of information. The link
to our content is accessible from the link
"Encyclop�die" at the front of their home page.
When one clicks on "Encyclopedie", here what one can
see http://www.ebabylone.com/article.php?sid=7
It is an extraction of our home page. On this page,
there are no references of Wikipedia.
At the bottom of the page a comment: All the Logos
and trademarks are deposited, the comments are under
the responsibility of those which published them, the
remainder � 2000 ebabylone.com
When one clicks on the link of the encyclopaedia, one
notes that all the articles are here, complete and
updated. The totality of the articles is copied in
real time. See
http://www.ebabylone.com/encyclopreg.php?title=Biology
the article being complete, it remains the mention "an
article of Wikip�dia, the free encyclopaedia" at the
top of the article
At the bottom of the page, it remains also the mention
indicating that the contents are under licence GNU.
There is also part of a link (brokent, so non
clickable) indicating the source of the page.
There are no links anywhere either towards Wikipedia,
nor towards the article on wikipedia. Always at the
foot of the page, there remains the mention
"All the Logos and Marks are deposited, the comments
are under the responsibility of those which published
them, the remainder � 2000 ebabylone.com This site was
set up by ebabylone.com"
We are delighted by see fr.wikipedia used as source.
Nevertheless, certain questions arise.
Some editors estimate that according to GFDL'S, there
should obligatorily be a link to the original article,
to preserve the access of the history, to check the
authorship of the article. Is this true?
In addition, there is no link towards Wikip�dia on
this website, or to any article of Wikipedia. Only,
one partially broken and extr�mement discrete link for
each article. Is this ok?
It is also normal that figure always in footer the
mention of copyright of ebabylone?
What do you think ?
-------
Bonjour a tous
Un site francophone http://www.ebabylone.com/ a choisi
de nous utiliser comme source d information.
Le lien est accessible depuis Encyclop�die en tete de
leur page d accueil.
Lorsque l'on clique sur Encyclopedie, voici ce que l
on peut voir
http://www.ebabylone.com/article.php?sid=7
C'est une extraction de notre page d'accueil.
Sur cette page, il n'y a aucune r�f�rence a Wikipedia.
Au bas de la page un commentaire : Tous les Logos et
Marques sont d�pos�s, les commentaires sont sous la
responsabilit� de ceux qui les ont publi�s, le reste �
2000 ebabylone.com
------
Quand on clique sur les liens de l'encyclop�die, on
note que tous les articles sont la et complets. La
totalit� des articles est copi�e en temps r�el.
Voir
http://www.ebabylone.com/encyclopreg.php?title=Biologie
L'article �tant complet, il reste la mention "Un
article de Wikip�dia, l'encyclop�die libre"
Au bas de la page, il reste �galement la mention
indiquant que le contenu est sous licence GNU. Il y a
egalement une partie de lien indiquant la source de la
page, mais aucun lien ni vers Wikipedia, ni vers
l'article sur wikipedia.
Toujours en bas de page, il reste la mention
Tous les Logos et Marques sont d�pos�s, les
commentaires sont sous la responsabilit� de ceux qui
les ont publi�s, le reste � 2000 ebabylone.com
Ce site a �t� mis en place par ebabylone.com
------
Nous sommes ravis de voir fr.wikipedia utilis�e comme
source.
Neanmoins, certaines questions se posent.
Certains �diteurs estiment que selon la GFDL, il
devrait obligatoirement y avoir un lien vers l'article
originel, pour pr�server l'acc�s a l'historique des
auteurs de l'article. Est ce vrai ?
Par ailleurs, il n'y a donc aucun lien vers Wikip�dia
elle meme, ou vers aucun article de Wikipedia.
Seulement, un lien partiellement cass� et extr�mement
discret. Est ce normal ?
Est il egalement normal que figure toujours en pied de
page la mention de copyright de ebabylone ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
I see 'Source: http://fr.wikipedia.org' just below the
list of topics after
clicking the "Encyclopedie" link...
and if I click 'Biologie', at the bottom of the
article is:
"R�cup�r�e de
"http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Biologie&search="
Derni�re modification de cette page : 8 sep 2003 �
09:45. Tous les textes
sont disponibles sous les termes de la Licence de
documentation libre GNU .
"
Neither credit is very prominent, but they're there
(now, at least)...
-- Jake
Someone wrote to him I think, and complained there
were nowhere a link to the encyclopedia. He visited us
at our pump, and said he had forgotten to put a link
to the encyclopedia, and would do so (apparently he
did :-)).
So, the little credit we had first has improved. At
least, there is a link to the encyclopedia now. I
think some people still think that any article should
have a direct link as well. I would like someone more
knowledgable to tell me if this is true.
He also said he would change the main page design if
we asked him too.
Finally, he said that instead of searching wikipedia
database for each request (this is how it works right
now), he was in the process of downloading our whole
database to put it directly onto his website server.
Thanks
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Toby-
> The whole setup looks very odd for Wikipedia.
> Why is Erik deciding by fiat how things are run?
He is the vote coordinator; somebody has to make choices on how to procede or
nothing will happen. He has not been dictatorial and has been reasonably open
to modifying schedules and procedures when a consensus forms to do so. But at
the same time he hasn't been a complete pushover trying to accommodate
everybody; if that were the case then we would be much further behind in the
vote process than we are already.
I think Erik is doing an excellent job and think he should be thanked for the
many hours of his /own/ time he has put into this effort instead of being
accused of dictating terms. This is, after all, the largest vote in
Wikipedia's history and we are all learning as we move along. But at the same
time the vote does have to move along. Arguing over the vote method to use on
the vote to decide what the second stage voting method should be, is, IMO a
petty activity that tends to rerail the process instead of moving it along.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I feel lazy this evening, therefore I will use the
translation of google.
Here what I conclude from the current experiment of
the vote. I think that after vote of the new logo, it
would be very interesting that all the international
wikip�dias take care well to translate the various
techniques of votes (by using for example the articles
of en.wikipedia). That will make it possible to the
editors to better include/understand the various modes
of existing poll.
In addition, a page on m�ta, clearly identifying the
advantages and disadvantages of each mode of poll will
make it possible to better identify for the next vote,
the various possibilities being offered to us. This
page exists already partially, here
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote/Vote_on_voting_method
The most information concerning a mode of poll will be
added, the best informed future voters will be. We
will be able to also add the various already lived
examples, the vote of the counting of the articles,
the vote of the logo first turn, the vote of the logo
second turn, the vote of the vote: -)
Anthere
Je me sens paresseuse ce soir, donc je vais utiliser
la traduction de google.
Voici ce que je conclus de l'exp�rience actuelle du
vote.
Je pense qu'apr�s vote du nouveau logo, il serait tr�s
int�ressant que toutes les wikip�dias internationales
prennent bien soin de traduire les diff�rentes
techniques de votes (en utilisant par exemple les
articles de en.wikipedia). Cela permettra aux �diteurs
de mieux comprendre les diff�rents modes de scrutin
existant.
Par ailleurs, une page sur m�ta, identifiant
clairement les avantages et inconv�nients de chaque
mode de scrutin permettra de mieux identifier pour le
prochain vote, les diff�rentes possibilit�s s'offrant
� nous.
Cette page existe d�j� partiellement, ici
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_logo_vote/Vote_on_voting_method
Le plus d'information concernant un mode de scrutin
sera ajout�, le mieux inform�s les futurs �lecteurs
seront. Nous pourrons �galement ajouter les diff�rents
exemples d�j� v�cus, le vote du comptage des articles,
le vote du logo premier tour, le vote du logo deuxi�me
tour, le vote du vote :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>Next time, a non-American organizer!?
That's a bit insulting since it presumes there is something wrong with being
American. Erik isn't American either, BTW.
Why is it when people see that something is not going the way they want it,
that they automatically assume it is some type of Anglo or "worse" American
conspiracy?
This has to stop.
--mav
I don't know if anyone has noticed this yet, but Wikipedia has been
mentioned on Slashdot again, and there have been a few vandals who seem to
have arrived from there in the past few minutes. I suppose the "slashdot
effect" may be imminent...
Adam Bishop
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Christopher Mahan wrote:
>Question:
>
>Is voting open only to editors or to readers-only
>as well?
>
>I personally welcome input from all people, since
>it is in fact readers we are trying to reach with the
>logo, not just editors.
How exactly are we going to ensure each vote is legit then? If it weren't for
the contributors there would be no Wikipedia at all; they are our community
and IMO they should be the ones to choose what the logo is going to be.
-- mav