Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Interview.
Bidgee and I did the interview at the stated time and place. Paralympic schedule is on the last page of the pamphlet. If you need a better source for it, can provide. People kept walking into the interview. --LauraHale (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
The informal group interview presents interesting difficulties.
It would be seriously daunting to set up an article using a classic transcript format based on such an interview.
It doesn't lend itself to neatly compartmentalizing the dialog into questions/responses,
it's difficult to untangle exactly who was speaking at what point, and
even if it could be done in principle, putting it together would be an awful lot of work.
On the other hand, the format used here has its weaknesses.
There were some interesting points in the interview that aren't in the text summary.
The summary is vulnerable to subjectivity creeping in to the reporter's interpretation —whereas a transcript is much better for leaving interpretation to the reader)— and, moreover, the reviewer may have great difficulty determining when such creep has occurred, especially since the audio recording can't convey the depth of impressions produced by actually being there.
The audio recording is inaccessible to the hearing impaired.
Fwiw, here are my crude estimates of where the points raised by the summary paragraphs occurred on the audio tape: starting with the second paragraph: ~14:00; ~13:00; ~2:00; ~12:00; ~17:00; ~26:00.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The informal group interview presents interesting difficulties.
It would be seriously daunting to set up an article using a classic transcript format based on such an interview.
It doesn't lend itself to neatly compartmentalizing the dialog into questions/responses,
it's difficult to untangle exactly who was speaking at what point, and
even if it could be done in principle, putting it together would be an awful lot of work.
On the other hand, the format used here has its weaknesses.
There were some interesting points in the interview that aren't in the text summary.
The summary is vulnerable to subjectivity creeping in to the reporter's interpretation —whereas a transcript is much better for leaving interpretation to the reader)— and, moreover, the reviewer may have great difficulty determining when such creep has occurred, especially since the audio recording can't convey the depth of impressions produced by actually being there.
The audio recording is inaccessible to the hearing impaired.
Fwiw, here are my crude estimates of where the points raised by the summary paragraphs occurred on the audio tape: starting with the second paragraph: ~14:00; ~13:00; ~2:00; ~12:00; ~17:00; ~26:00.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The interview kind of happened like that. It wasn't intentional. A transcript would have been much nicer. This was a case where I was feeling a bit of a time crunch to get things published. I'm hoping during the Paralympics, if we get interviews again, some one can take the interview and write it up based on the audio in a way that will take that pressure off time wise for me as an on the ground reporter. The whole who is talking thing was problematic. One on one if thus favourable if it can be arranged. But yeah, I basically agree with what you're saying. I'm hoping we can get some help during the Paralympics to write this stuff up to help with timeliness. --LauraHale (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
