Anyone like to help me improve wikipedia's LibriVox page?

[TimoleonWash]

Wikipedia has a page for LibriVox which is labeled as 'needing improvement.' Is there anyone, hopefully a senior LibriVoxer, who would like to work with me to improve the page and have this label removed?
Tim

[Kangaroo692]

The page is somewhat outdated. I noticed that the reason for it needing improvement was at the top of the page there were some LV stats and the reference was noted as being to close to LibriVox. Wikipedia apparently wants third-party sources for their pages.

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject

I don't think there is really much we can do... maybe it should be discussed on the LibriVox Wikipedia Talk page.

Here is a discussion on that talk page:

The references/sources in the article are terrible - almost all seem to be blogs or internal LibriVox documents, both of which fail WP:RS.

Seconded. Particularly an issue on the quality section, where imo a falsely positive impression is given of discussion around the issue of multiple readers and minimal baseline quality threshold. Most discussion I've seen of this over the years has been various shades of exasperated. LibriVox appears to be in perennial denial about this, and I suspect the tone of this article reflects that. 81.108.180.242 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The LibriVox website has a list of newspaper and magazine articles that would be excellent sources for inline citations, as well as expanding the Wikipedia article - see the first seven listed at http://librivox.org/pages/about-librivox/#3 are excellent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's something we could help with?

But I don't think LibriVox would like it if we did edits on our own page.

But I found something interesting that LV readers might want to do:

Richestlibrary (talk) is currently recording or editing an audio version of this article.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

This notice is dated 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC). If a significant amount of time has passed, please check with Richestlibrary (talk) to see if he or she is still working before removing this message.

It looks like the user Richestlibrary has been deleted from Wikipedia, and it would be kind of cool if somebody would helped out with this.

It would be better to discuss any and all edits made to the LV Wikipedia page on it's talk page. I'm a newbie to Wikipedia, and I don't know much about it.

[annise]

Particularly an issue on the quality section, where imo a falsely positive impression is given of discussion around the issue of multiple readers and minimal baseline quality threshold. Most discussion I've seen of this over the years has been various shades of exasperated. LibriVox appears to be in perennial denial about this, and I suspect the tone of this article reflects that.

Both Wiki and LV operate on the principle that people will do their best and anyone with 2 neurons will know that this will produce an uneven result . Wiki has the advantage that their items can be continually edited - ours can't . So the remark is only worth the paper it is written on. We have great group projects , we have some with less than great recording for many reasons . We have great solos , we have some that are also less than great.
And we have books available as group readings which are extremely unlikely to ever be read by a single reader.
But Wiki also has some terrible pages
People who live in glass houses ...........

There is no "official" wiki page - do what you want. We don't have "official" anythings outside of the prime directive - recording all books that are PD
All the rest are nice extras added by people who want to do it

Anne

[TimoleonWash]

Thanks for your thoughts on this stuff. I'm sorry to ask you to participate in the painful process of helping me understand this stuff and am grateful that you do. Here's what I get so far from everywhere I've looked:

• 1. LibriVox has no official relationships with any other organization.
  2. LibriVox has representation on other websites but this presence is permitted, created and maintained by folks at those other organizations.
  3. Wikipedia is sensitive to members of an organization taking an active role in wikipedia regarding that organization.
  4. LibriVox in an official part of wikipedia. This means that it has been taken on, implemented, and maintained by recognized wikipedia editors.
  5. Wikipedia is open to LibriVoxer's modifying wikipedia pages so long as it is done under their framework and with the blessings of one of their editors.
  6. Any modifications of wikipedia's page on LibriVox are beyond the official concern of LibriVox and under the complete control of wikipedians.

With the above in mind it think it likely that we could successfully modify, and improve, the LibriVox page on wikipedia.

Reading the comments here and some of the stuff at wikipedia I think it would help if I could find out something about LibriVox's representation on other sites like gutenberg, internet archives, etc.

Does anyone know about LibriVox's presence, if any, on other sites?

[annise]

I'm not sure what you mean by 4? Anyone can edit Wikipedia - I can for example but I seldom do.

The only "relationship" we have is with Internet Archive - who store all our files as one of a number of "collections" - same as you could have a "TW collection" if you uploaded more than their minimum number of pages, They also help us with space and bandwidth to run our forums and in a number of other ways too.
But I don't see the need to put any of this on a Wikipedia page.

Anne

[kayray]

Seconded. Particularly an issue on the quality section, where imo a falsely positive impression is given of discussion around the issue of multiple readers and minimal baseline quality threshold. Most discussion I've seen of this over the years has been various shades of exasperated. LibriVox appears to be in perennial denial about this, and I suspect the tone of this article reflects that. 81.108.180.242 (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is so hilarious :) We're in denial. Lol. No. People who complain about stuff are the ones that get heard. The bajillions of people who think our quality is acceptable are busy downloading and listening, not complaining on websites.

And they always miss the point! We're not TRYING to produce professional quality recordings; therefore we're not failing in the attempt to do so.

We're trying to record everything in the public domain at what WE consider a "listenable" standard.

I know I'm preaching to the choir; it's just funny that they still don't "get" it. :)

[Isana]

Good grief, some things on that Wiki article make me wince. Maybe you can just delete it and start from scratch.

[Kangaroo692]

Good idea, Isana. I don't understand why there needs to be a list of example audiobooks, when no one else has one.

[TriciaG]

And get rid of the "Most praised solo readers in 2011". This isn't a talent competition.

[TimoleonWash]

As there is interest in improving wikipedia's LibriVox page, should we choose someone as the person to actually modify the wikipedia page?

[RuthieG]

Not me, brother. Wikipedia editors are too touchy about anyone else doing anything with their precious pages. But if anyone is braver than I...

The problem I see with this is that Wikipedia demands what they call "reliable sources". There are no "reliable sources" for LibriVox. Apart from official LibriVox documentation (which they do not accept) there are only opinion pieces and anecdotal "evidence". The latter tends to be negative because empty barrels make the most noise. All I can find are a few newspaper articles, articles on more or less reputable websites, and mentions in books.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/18/good-reading-for-tech-crabs/NVInYboLEObVbitm651sFI/story.html
reason.com http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/24/the-wealth-of-librivox

BoingBoing has several articles.

See also:
Audiobooks, Literature, and Sound Studies edited by Matthew Rubery (on Google Books here)
Bridging the Digital Divide with Mobile Services by Andromeda Yelton (on Google Books here)

Our selection as one of the Nominet Trust 100 in 2014 is reputable, I should think, and could be included. ("Each year, it brings together 100 of the world's most inspiring examples of social innovation, where digital technologies have been used to tackle a significant social challenge.") http://socialtech.org.uk/nominet-trust-100/2014/

Ruth

[Kangaroo692]

I'll be happy to help edit the article on Wikipedia. I'll need a little help though.

[TimoleonWash]

Not me, brother. Wikipedia editors are too touchy about anyone else doing anything with their precious pages. But if anyone is braver than I...

Either I've thick skin or so many scars that I can't feel anymore , and though I'm not brave I'll wade into wikipedia swampland

The problem I see with this is that Wikipedia demands what they call "reliable sources". There are no "reliable sources" for LibriVox. Apart from official LibriVox documentation (which they do not accept) there are only opinion pieces and anecdotal "evidence". The latter tends to be negative because empty barrels make the most noise. All I can find are a few newspaper articles, articles on more or less reputable websites, and mentions in books.

You're right here, boy oh boy are you right. The more trusted the reference, the more they like it. For LibriVox, the internal references you mentioned can be included if enough other, non-affiliated sources suggest LibriVox is legit.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/18/good-reading-for-tech-crabs/NVInYboLEObVbitm651sFI/story.html
reason.com http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/24/the-wealth-of-librivox

are excellent online references, as well as are the books you mentioned.

BoingBoing has several articles.

See also:
Audiobooks, Literature, and Sound Studies edited by Matthew Rubery (on Google Books here)
Bridging the Digital Divide with Mobile Services by Andromeda Yelton (on Google Books here)

Our selection as one of the Nominet Trust 100 in 2014 is reputable, I should think, and could be included. ("Each year, it brings together 100 of the world's most inspiring examples of social innovation, where digital technologies have been used to tackle a significant social challenge.") http://socialtech.org.uk/nominet-trust-100/2014/

Ruth

From working with wikipedia recently on the LibriVox template I'm convinced LibriVox can work with wikipedia to create a good LibriVox page that passes wikipedia muster in all ways. Oh please, oh please...

[TimoleonWash]

I'll be happy to help edit the article on Wikipedia. I'll need a little help though.

GREAT! It looks like I'm your helper Kangaroo692, if you'll have me I've lots of ideas as I bet you do also; how shall we proceed? Perhaps we could use a wikipedia SandBox to play in.

[TimoleonWash]

And get rid of the "Most praised solo readers in 2011". This isn't a talent competition.

I just came back from wikipedia's LibriVox page and the section you mentioned has been recently removed. Yea! Must be ESP