I do pronounce it as a schwa - that's if the definition in the link you gave me has any real utility: "like the 'a' in about".
Problem is, how I/we pronounce the schwa 'a' in "about" might not be the same as how you or anyone else does. Nothing can be trusted when it's merely represented as a textual character, a symbol or schwa definition. You have to hear an actual spoken sound before you can truly say, "yes, that's how I pronounce it too".
For example, if something was defined as: "like the 'ou' in about", Canadians would read this completely differently to the rest of us. South ("Syth") Dubliners would read it differently again.
Our "schwa a" is a very flat, somewhat extended ah, verging on aah; you have to momentarily widen your mouth, as if into a smile or grimace, to say it. It's not a posh, round-mouthed aw, nor a dropped-chin doctor's "ahh", not a grunted uh, not a clipped o'h, not a rhotic ar, not eh, not er, nor any other of dozens of other permutations. But here I am, trying to _describe_ it to you; it's almost futile. If I had training in the dictionary sybolism you use, I might succeed, but anyway I'm still not convinced that the sybolism has standardised sound correspondence.
I think that what we can do, at least, is be critical of cases where very different sounds are assigned the same pronunciation guide sound: that's why I started this thread. However hard it is to pin down these sounds, we can at least agree that they are not the same as each other!
