so many points I wanna address! Should we set up separate talk pages/sections or something for discussing transcription guidelines, formatting, problems etc.? I don't know what's conventional, but it's probably going to get messy pretty quickly otherwise.
in lieu of that, sorry for the long post.
I also thrive on rules and regulations, and I think it's important we lay down a set now, nice and early.
I agree, especially as it's a community project, so we can keep some uniformity to the pages.
However, I also completely agree with rwh that:
I'd like to keep the barrier to entry as low as possible. The last thing we should do is burden people with scary rules or lots of required wiki markup. If someone wants to just paste in unformatted text without any wiki markup at all I think we should encourage that.
We obviously don't need to be too strict, and I agree we definitely don't want to put potential contributors off.
At worst, if people have problems, I'd support them submitting a transcript and flagging it for someone else to add markup/formatting etc., including the Bob/Jay distinction. I would help with this where possible. If we could also encourage people to include comments with timestamps for particular problems, that would save a lot of time.Links
So far I have used links liberally with the thinking that I can easily remove them if we decide against them. But it's way more difficult to go back through and enter them afterwards. Generally, I've included them for:
- Technical jargon that I'm looking up the spelling for anyway
- Other key concepts that may not be immediately obvious (e.g. argumentum ad hominem)
- Podcast references to particular people
- Podcast references to a website or particular article (when it can be found easily)
- on this note, I've not found how to use reference footnotes - general wiki refs don't work. They would be good for links that don't directly correspond to single words in the transcript (e.g. articles, press releases, Neurologica blog posts).
I think that these should be easily viewable from a first-glance.
As the segment headings are already in the contents list, including timestamps within these headings is probably the cleanest
way to do this so far. Unless there are any other ideas?Wiki boxes
- I like the idea of wiki boxes, but I think that we shouldn't make them too complex. They should be easy to add and give the most important summary info.
- I agree, they should be short and to the point.
- I agree that putting segment headings in these is redundant, I was just playing around with how to include the timestamps
- I think that it would be nice to use the episode pics if possible as the pages are otherwise very dry, also, they sometimes reference these directly in the podcast
- keeping the SGU links (notes, podcast, forum) here is nice and neat
- agree it's a good place for Rogue list
- I agree we should have a uniform way to distinguish between regulars and guests/interviewees
If anyone has experience making wiki box templates, please let us know, as this will make entering them much easier/cleaner.Site-specific links
There's also the possibility of developing one of those footer things with, say previous/next episode to link the transcripts together in a sequence. We also haven't used any Categories yet...
- I like the idea of a sequence - previous/next links
- Categories is also a very good idea, I'm guessing you mean nanotechnology, archaeology, alternative <li>medicine etc?
Edit: What are your opinions on transcribing sentence fillers? I miss out the "um"s and the like, but I've been including the "you know"s and similar. We could transcribe the episodes accurately, or just what's necessary. That's not to say I think we should miss out things like (laughter), or should we?
I've been trying to keep as faithful to the podcast as possible
- I omit "er" and "um", but generally include other fillers (e.g. like, you know)
- For sentences that are incomplete, and/or are then re-worded, I've transcribed all words and used a hyphen or comma to indicate these.
- Sometimes these don't make complete sense, but I agree with rwh that the person reading them should come to their own conclusions and that we, as transcribers, should avoid interpretation.
But if they're loud or I want to make sure that it's clear that everyone is agreeing with something then I transcribe them. I do the same for laughter, because it's important in understanding that something isn't to be read literally as there is often a lot of sarcasm in the humour that they use. I also do my best to transcribe overlapping speech as it's often when people are most animated,
I agree with this
Now... what about US English vs International...?
I'm British, but I've been using American spelling - it's the default for most spell-checkers I've used anyway, plus, I hope to move to Chicago in the near future, so it's good practice for me - even if it makes me stumble. However, I'll go with what's popular.
Lastly, any other ideas/feedback on including fact summaries?
if we're going to include them, the section needs a name.
oh, and do we know what happened to the last transcription project
? that might be a good thing to know
Right, I think that's all for now. phew!