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

Kangaroo692 · Post by **Kangaroo692** » April 13th, 2015, 11:32 am

Hi, I've got some questions for an admin. We are in the organization and funding section of the Wikipedia page, and are wondering: A. Is the super admin group still used? and B. How are admin decisions made?

Thank you.

Post by **TriciaG** » April 13th, 2015, 11:45 am

Decisions are made by consensus.

I don't know what you mean about the super admin group. They aren't higher in rank or have more responsibility or authority; they are regular admins that have access to a couple other tech areas. It would be better not to mention super admins at all on Wikipedia.

TimoleonWash · Post by **TimoleonWash** » April 13th, 2015, 3:32 pm

TriciaG wrote:Decisions are made by consensus.

I don't know what you mean about the super admin group. They aren't higher in rank or have more responsibility or authority; they are regular admins that have access to a couple other tech areas. It would be better not to mention super admins at all on Wikipedia.

If I was reading an article about an all-volunteer outfit like LibriVox I would want to know how they are organized and administered. For instance, since LibriVox doesn't seem to be a legal corporation, they must at least have a bank account somewhere where the fundraising money is sent, and how is the admin team organized. If we don't publish this kind of info people will wonder why I think. In these days of lack of transparency being a big complaint, why wouldn't LibriVox want the world to know how it operates?

What do you 'ole LibriVox fans think? If the information doesn't come from LibriVox itself they how would the world know? In t

Post by **TriciaG** » April 13th, 2015, 4:05 pm

I don't think the super admin thing is a matter of transparency; I think it's unnecessary detail. Does it matter that some admins can activate new members while others can't? I personally don't think so. Like I said - it's not a matter of superiority or rank, but passing around some of the responsibility. Some admins do CD covers; others activate new members. Just because one needs special forum powers doesn't make them any more special.

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » April 13th, 2015, 4:19 pm

TimoleonWash wrote:If I was reading an article about an all-volunteer outfit like LibriVox I would want to know how they are organized and administered. For instance, since LibriVox doesn't seem to be a legal corporation, they must at least have a bank account somewhere where the fundraising money is sent...

No, LibriVox does not have a bank account. The How to Donate page makes it clear that donations are handled through the Internet Archive on our behalf.

Note that all donations to LibriVox are made through our official home, the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Please make sure that you specify that your donation is for LibriVox.

Ruth

kayray · Post by **kayray** » April 13th, 2015, 5:04 pm

TimoleonWash wrote:...and how is the admin team organized.

It isn't. Some do one job, some another, according to taste, time, ability, know-how, and ambition.

Post by **annise** » April 13th, 2015, 5:13 pm

This is supposed to be an outsider writing the Wiki article I thought - none of this is relevant .
Are you going to write 10 paragraphs about how the BC picks the book ? Another 10 about how the DPL does his job? You'd need about 20 to describe different ways of buying microphones, sitting or standing , sucking lemons , editing etc

Anne

carolb · Post by **carolb** » April 15th, 2015, 2:26 pm

TimoleonWash wrote: What do you 'ole LibriVox fans think? If the information doesn't come from LibriVox ... how would the world know?

The magic of Librivox is that it has been running for 10 years, as Cori said. It has drawn, and continues to draw people from all over the world. The vast majority – if not all of us stumbled upon it in a variety of ways, much as one becomes acquainted with a new friend. We didn’t dash off to the wiki – or anywhere else and check out LV’s credentials, bank account, modus operandi or anything else. Would that have been useful information that would influence our decision? No. We browsed through the forum and thus made friends and started to feel at home. We listened to some recordings and had a go ourselves.

Elsewhere you mentioned about 'trying to do a professional job' Please don't on our account! We all hold amateur status around here, and enjoy it that way. I doubt if even Hugh, our founder would consider himself a 'Librivox Professional'. It isn't that kind of organisation

Carol

Kangaroo692 · Post by **Kangaroo692** » April 15th, 2015, 2:43 pm

I think I may not continue being a part of this project... "Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia That Everyone Can Edit". It says, edit, not re-write. I don't think a single group of people should work on an article, I think it would be better if they just edited it directly. In fact, it would probably be better to talk with some of the WikiProjects on Wikipedia (like Books, Libraries and Internet Culture) who might be able to help out. I may continue to help you, but I don't like the way this project is being taken on.

P.S. - Let us not discuss this on the LV forums, if were going to continue with this, but how about on the LV wiki article talk page. This is not an LV project, you know (and if it is, it should be a Wikipedia project), but a Wikipedia project.

Thank you.

TimoleonWash · Post by **TimoleonWash** » April 15th, 2015, 8:26 pm

I had no idea at all that this project, improving Wikipedia's LibriVox page, would cause such problems or raise so many emotions. It is all very disappointing to me. I still think the Wikipedia page could be improved and should be improved and still intend to do it myself even at the risk of condemnation here at LibriVox.

If you folks feel that if I proceed with this plan that I should no longer be involved in LibriVox you need to tell me. Otherwise I shall continue as I have, OK?

TimoleonWash · Post by **TimoleonWash** » April 15th, 2015, 8:27 pm

RuthieG wrote:
TimoleonWash wrote:If I was reading an article about an all-volunteer outfit like LibriVox I would want to know how they are organized and administered. For instance, since LibriVox doesn't seem to be a legal corporation, they must at least have a bank account somewhere where the fundraising money is sent...
No, LibriVox does not have a bank account. The How to Donate page makes it clear that donations are handled through the Internet Archive on our behalf.
Note that all donations to LibriVox are made through our official home, the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Please make sure that you specify that your donation is for LibriVox.
Ruth

Ruth, I'm sorry I seemed to have missed reading this post. It had just the info I was looking for about bank accounts, etc., thank you.

RuthieG · Post by **RuthieG** » April 16th, 2015, 2:34 am

TimoleonWash wrote:I had no idea at all that this project, improving Wikipedia's LibriVox page, would cause such problems or raise so many emotions. It is all very disappointing to me. I still think the Wikipedia page could be improved and should be improved and still intend to do it myself even at the risk of condemnation here at LibriVox.

If you folks feel that if I proceed with this plan that I should no longer be involved in LibriVox you need to tell me. Otherwise I shall continue as I have, OK?

Oh, deary me, there is no question of that. Cori suggested somewhere (the other thread, I think) that you look at the Wikipedia pages of similar projects such as Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders, and take them as a model. Wikipedia articles are pages, not books. If people want to learn more, they know where to come.

Ruth

ekzemplaro · Post by **ekzemplaro** » April 16th, 2015, 4:27 am

Hello Tim san,

I agree with you.

TimoleonWash wrote: I still think the Wikipedia page could be improved and should be improved

As an example I mention the Japanese Wikipedia about LibriVox.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibriVox

1000本以上のオーディオブック

2.ウェブサイトのホスティングはnyip.netが無償でサポート

最終閲覧2007年11月7日

You can use google translator. The tranlation is correct.

Cheers,
Masa

Post by **Availle** » April 16th, 2015, 8:14 am

I really should stay out of this...

Masa,
as mentioned above, wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

If you find something - anything, in any article - that's out of date or inaccurate on wikipedia or that you're simply unhappy with, go for it and change it accordingly. At the moment, you are the only Japanese speaker (that I am aware of) on Librivox. As far as I can see, the last major edits on the Japanese pages have been done in 2008, probably by one of the Japanese speakers we had then (kaseumin?) After that, it was just bots adding new links to new languages. Of course the information there is going to be outdated seven years later.

The entries on wikipedia are only as good as the people who write them. Some articles get a lot of TLC because they have lots of editors. Others, with less people interested in the topic, will always be stubs.

I have taken a look at the other language entries for Librivox on wikipedia. The largest one - besides English - is the German one, which more or less reflects the number of German speaking people on here in relation to the English speakers. In fact, I like the German article a lot - it covers a lot of ground without going into boring detail.

Again: we (as an organisation, whatever that may mean) are not responsible for whatever wikipedia says about us. If you want it to be accurate, go and make it so.