Robert Citek wrote:
On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:39 AM, JT Moree wrote:
A wiki is text but no one reading the text knows which author write
which words. one sentence may have 20 authors because it has been
edited so much.
True, unless you want to spend time looking through the history.
If audio were recorded instead of text you would need 20 recordings?
and not just for one sentence but the whole paragraph at least. this
makes editing impossible.
Impossible is a bit extreme. Impractical may be a bit more accurate.
I'm thinking that maybe a different model is needed. As you
mentioned wiki is text where the basic unit is the character. Audio
doesn't have a basic character-type unit. At one extreme the
smallest audio unit is the time-slice, but that's like describing a
character in terms of pixels. At the other extreme, an audio unit is
the entire recording, which could be a sentence, paragraph, section,
or entire book. So what audio needs is a basic unit in order to make
editing practical, an audio character. Or maybe it doesn't and
people in the audio world have already solved the problem of editing
audio text some other way.
Perhaps text to speech software applied to a wiki site would be
more effective for the stated purpose.
Perhaps. Dunno, yet. But my experience with speech software has
been less than optimal.
From these and other comments on this thread, two thoughts do come
to mind. One is that the text and audio versions of a wiki should
match one-to-one: make a change in the wiki and the corresponding
change in the audio occurs. I think the only practical way to do
this would be via some automated method such as speech software,
which you mention.
The other thought is that the text and audio versions should be
related but not necessarily one-to-one, much like the adaptation of a
book for a play or movie. The movie and play are related to but not
the same as the book (e.g. Harry Potter). So there could be a text
wiki and an audio wiki of the same subject, but they will differ to
some degree in content.
Just exploring the Free-Content space.
Regards,
- Robert
http://www.cwelug.org/downloads
Help others get OpenSource software. Distribute FLOSS
for Windows, Linux, *BSD, and MacOS X with BitTorrent
_______________________________________________
CWE-LUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cwelug.org/
http://www.cwelug.org/archives/
http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
Methinks an audio wiki would be an oxy-moron. Since in nearly all cases
wikis are used to convey information or technical descriptions, what
would be the point of an audio version. Unless it is completely rendered
by a machine voice with no inflection, pauses, or stresses, the meaning
of a sentence can be altered. While the formal spelling of 'darling' is
universally accepted in the English language, the spoken version is not,
hence 'dahling', 'darlin'', 'dahlink' (you know, Zsa Zsa). The only
practical use of the idea I can see is to render the written into spoken
in order to benefit the hearing impaired users of a wiki. In that case I
see the only workable method being a machine voice, without inflection
or any need to interpret meaning.
Spoken language does have a basic unit, it is called a phoneme.
http://the-stewardship.org/research/blte.htm
Reading the article makes me wonder if it can be possible to edit audio
at a basic unit level.
M. Georg
_______________________________________________
CWE-LUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cwelug.org/
http://www.cwelug.org/archives/
http://www.cwelug.org/mailinglist/
