Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Not The Wikipedia Weekly/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

kick off

I've been pestering people for a little while to consider getting involved with such a project, and here it is... we'll need more than good luck to make this work - so do consider getting involved if you'd like... Questions and thoughts most welcome... Privatemusings (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to be part of last night's and tonight's chat. Bstone (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Danny's Blog

Danny's had his since Late January, for what it's worth. Ral315 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's been around a couple of months, but figured that that broadly still falls under the moniker 'recently' - I'll try and make it clear in the chat.... thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alas will NotTheWikipediaWeekly be more frequent than Wikipedia Weekly :)

It's sounding good so far :) -- Tawker (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this little project has some ways to go before reaching the lofty heights of your good selves! - but glad you liked it - and thanks for popping by, and the note - do come by 'live' next time if you get the chance! - it'd be great to have you! Privatemusings (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Youse done good son. A bit heavy handed when letting us know you want advertising. If i was Sue I would have slapped you (at that point). But you got the "Outreach" approach much better than our self indulgent friends at WW. We can all make criticisms about the production, but first attempt? You've inspired this loudmouth. Now if we could only get some collaboration happening. Guys, could we just have one monthly which gets Jay, Kul and a couple of other staff together for a monthly Q&A. You can stick any Q's on my user page in this domain or maybe we can set up one for a forum at wikback. You can see Sue's overwhelmed by the opinion and input (distractions). It would be nice if we could help to help them get the comms a little organised/systemized. --Simonfj (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

what about a move to Wikipedia:Conversations?

I've mentioned to some that the current location of this page was partly inspired by Not the Nine O'Clock News - but I don't really see this as becoming a cutting edge political satire show just yet - so maybe the current location isn't the best fit? - thoughts on a move to the above location, or any other ideas? Privatemusings (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a boring name, no? I like things with spice. Bstone (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious: why is this weekly-or-so podcast here and not at Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly? .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 06:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
For, as the name so mildly implies, it's not the Wikipedia weekly. Bstone (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
But it is a weekly-or-so podcast about Wikipedia, and could be the Wikipedia Weekly. .ιΙι.WODUP.ιIι. 07:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, no, no! - I just checked... it definitely says 'NotThe' before the title. You see this is something else..... (actually, I've asked Tawker, from the wikipedia weekly if he might consider creating a notthe.wikipediaweekly.org subdomain - which would be awesome because it would give us an mp3 / RSS option too, and the iTunes thing, of course....) - but in some ways my / our intentions here, whilst clearly synergous, differ to aspects of the wikipedia weekly approach - I think the two sit quite happily with one as The Wikipedia Weekly, and one Not! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

why not use a more common format?

Wikipedia Weekly releases their content as both ogg and mp3, and they report that the mp3 version is downloaded about 10 times as much. This is not surprising given the hassle I needed to go through to be able to hear your podcast on my computer. I urge you to do the same and release mp3 versions as well. --Zvika (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where would we release them? We upload them to Commons which is why they are split arbitrarily into three or four sections each. Commons only allow .ogg format as it is a free format. It is not that difficult to listen to .ogg. Wikipedia Weekly has their own web site were they are posted. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That the mp3's of WikipediaWeekly are more popular then the Ogg version is logical because the RSS-feed of the podcasts is mp3 only. --Walter (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
which brings me to my next question....

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way to listen to Ogg format files on an iPod, which is how I usually listen to podcasts. I usually also get podcasts through subscription in iTunes. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the maximum upload size on commons is 20MB. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

anyone have any idea about mediawiki's RSS potential?

I gather it's not that great at the moment, but maybe we could jury-rig something? I'm guessing that something somehow might be possible, but I wouldn't have a clue how to go about it.... maybe someone else does? - Privatemusings (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

I suggest to make a subpage for each episode. then people can comment on each episode by that subpage's talk page.

As for RSS, the easiest thing by far, to do, is simply set up a blog. --pfctdayelise (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Listening to the first episode, Privatemusings, you're kind of echo-ey and shouty, but otherwise a very impressive moderator for a first episode. :) pfctdayelise (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm far from being technically minded really, and was really just glad that the recording worked at all, and I'm glad that you thought it kinda worked! Thanks! - I agree about the episode subpages, and was actually thinking about 'transcluding' maybe 2 episodes onto the NotTheWikipediaWeekly 'frontpage' - then I realised I didn't really know how, and have let it slide for now.... Do go ahead and wiki edit away to demonstrate any ideas you've got (feel free to bung the existing pages onto subpages....) - it shouldn't be a big deal to see how it works / if we like it - and while you're at it, why not sign up for a chit chat? It'd be nice to say 'hi'! - best, Privatemusings (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Use a free protocol

Skype is closed and proprietary, while SIP and QuteCom are FOSS. Shouldn't we use those? ffm 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

not only do I have no objection in principle, but I'd support such a transition if it could be shown to be as easy to manage - with someone like me in charge of the buttons from time to time, it has to be pretty simple, or it might not work! - could you produce a short 'how to' paragraph, ffm? - and p'raps we could give one of those options a test run for quality and ease of use? - certainly agree its worth looking at... thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it, and it doens't seem to have a record functionality. If you have such a functionality already outside your client (analog or say direct from the soundmixer) then that won't be a problem , but otherwise it would be a showstopper. Other than that, it is a great application that is every bit as pretty as skype. ffm 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I have investigated several other alternatives to Skype. They all have some advantages and some disadvantages. Other VOIP programs such as Gizmo, Sunrocket, Speakeasy, Viatalk, Verizon VoiceWing, Lingo, Packet8, Zap!, Jajah, SJPhone, AT&T Callvantage, Vonage, Google talk, and those included in MSN and Yahoo! messengers do not yet have online voice forums like Skypecasts, as far as I know (although this could change very quickly and might even not be true at the moment, since I have not looked at this for a few months).

There are other programs like Paltalk, oovoo, Mebeam and TalkShoe feature online voice forums, but do not yet have the same VOIP features that allow connection to the PSTN telephones (regular phone network), as far as I know. Each of these has their own advantages and disadvantages. Mebeam and oovoo allow up to 8 people to join in a video cast, but there are no lists of casts that I have found or ways to join casts that are not listed. Paltalk allows large discussion rooms, but a participant has to "raise their hand" to ask to speak and the host has to allow them to speak. A beta version removes this restriction.

One advantage to Skype is that those with regular telephone service can join a Skypecast. Although the hardware is not expensive, this can be a benefit for some people.

There are a huge number of new companies and emerging technologies that integrate telephones and the internet. For example, here is a blog entry that discusses some of these:[1]--Filll (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Kept me entertained for hours. I'm starting to center in on a few of the guys who is in the SIP space. SIP's the technology and (from a technical perspective) the main thing is to go with someone who is committed to open directories. AND come up with some SkypeCast-type combination which works reliably, globally. And might help with simplifying the complete process = setting up a conference (perhaps with landline dial in), recording, streaming, archiving, & linking to forum for (pre programme) discussions. That's about it, no? --Simonfj (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If this takes off

I have many friends on Skype that have expressed an interest in joining a Skypecast about Wikipedia. These are our "readers" and consumers. They are avid users and are quite interested in learning about the internal mechanics and giving feedback. If this goes well, I might consider inviting some of them. --Filll (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well here I am

It is 30 minutes or so before the scheduled start. What happens next? --Filll (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Up until now, all the official chats have been conducted by privatemusings - he would contact people, find out what was good for them, and set the official time. The problem with this page, as set up, is that there's nobody besides him pushing things. How does my time (Tuesday, March 25, 8:00 PM EDT) work for you? Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That is good for me too. I am new so I am not sure what procedure has been followed exactly.--Filll (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I am trying this as a test anyway.

Here is the current link:

<link removed>

Also, the direct number of the cast is XXX --Filll (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Raul654 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am trying to join. We have over 10 million users at the moment so it can take a few tries to join. It is better in the evening when the load is less. I find I get best results with about 6 million users or less.--Filll (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit finicky right now. I have tried over 50 times. I will use all the tricks of Skype that I have developed from using it for 2 years. If I cannot join to host, things will not be so good. I will keep trying.--Filll (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


We might try when it is a better time and fewer overall users. I have noticed in the past that sometimes the server for skypecasts seems to let people on easier depending where they live, at different times. So for example, Europeans might get on easier than Americans, at certain times. Australians might get preference over the Middle East, at other times. But to be honest, this is just a guess. I have not figured out a pattern completely.--Filll (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Views Tool

really just for my own edification - here's the clever tool which monitors the page views... over 2,000 in march! - Privatemusings (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for future shows

Since tonight's show already has more than enough ideas, I have wondered if I might throw out some ideas for future shows. If some of these have enough components, and interested participants, an entire show might be devoted to one of these:

  • CIVILity creep: Jimbo has encouraged a change in the standards for WP:CIVIL over the last year or so. Of course, some of this is a natural progression as Wikipedia becomes larger and more prominent. Wikipedia obviously wants to present itself in the most favorable and professional light. However, there are downsides to some of this as well. I would propose to invite on people like Jimbo (although I doubt if he would accept), JzG (on Jimbo's CIVILity committee studying the issue last year, and someone who is prominent in the discussions about it), other members of the CIVILity committee, GTBacchus (a strong proponent of CIVIL) and others.
  • FRINGE articles: How should SA represent FRINGE material, particular in pseudoscientific areas? I have at least informal approval from ScienceApologist to appear. I am pursuing others, like Martinphi and Tom Butler(who probably will not appear by voice, but might appear by IM), and others. JzG might be good to get for this, and Raymond Arritt, and Levine2112, and possibly Jim62sch. Many others could be invited. --Filll (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dispute Resolution Analysis Group a new group forming to study new ways to reduce disputes on WP, and interface with outside academic research teams studying dispute resolution on Wikipedia (for example, the work of User: Leafman).
  • Possibly extending this idea to other areas such as statistics or studying the effects of other policies on Wikipedia, in something like a "Wikipedia Institute". --Filll (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit surprised, but still delighted, to find out we already have something like this. This stands to reason, and I was a bit puzzled before why I had not run across it. However, when I find out how much activity there is in this area, I am a bit taken aback that all the people I discussed this with never directed me to the right place. Nevertheless, for others who are similarly interested, I have started a small collection of links on this topic at User:Filll/Wikipedia Research.--Filll (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete list of potential guests and invitees

Potentially problem users, or users who have a different view of NPOV etc (User: Moulton or User: profg? or would they cause too much trouble?).

More to come of course.--Filll (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned the 'show' to Anthere (currently Chair of the Board of the Foundation) - who will probably be available to come on at some time... I haven't mentioned it to Jimbo, but he might be interested in popping along at some point too? - I've got in the back of my mind the idea of waiting until the board elections are a little bit closer (but not too close...) and covering 'foundation' type subjects in a bit more depth then..... I'd certainly add sitting arb.s to the list above, and have had some discussions about availability and interest there, which hopefully will come to fruition before too long as well..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in anything I could do by print, especially by email or on wiki. Or even chat, given enough time to respond. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Australians/Japanese etc.

2100 UTC is, like, 6am. Any chance of organising a one-off for, say, around 0800-1200 UTC in the future? I'd like to take part in one but haven't been able to due to the timing.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

that's actually a good time for me too, Daniel (I'm in Sydney...) - the way it's worked so far is that pretty much the first time suggested has been the eventual winner - so after the Euro conversation tomorrow, p'raps we'll pin down that time for next week... feel free to suggest the date and time yourself too.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
We've proposed the same time next week, but I've also suggested that another 'cast be scheduled before then, per Daniel's suggestion: there's lots of folks in Aus., and I'm sure there'd be a lot of interest in it. Anthøny 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If we had a cast on a Thursday at around 2300 I'd be able to make that as well :) Daniel (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
See, the problem with that is, it's still during the week for most folks, which means they have work/uni the next day :) Would Friday at the same time be doable? Anthøny 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately not, because that's Saturday morning, and I'm ... um ... unavailable to deliver rational thought on Saturday mornings :) Daniel (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I was thinking it was Wednesday for you. Silly ozzie time zone ;) Well, I understand that; you're no different from all of us, then :) Anthøny 09:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some rules?

We might need some basic guidelines for the Skypecast: 1/ mute your mic when not talking; 2/ some sort of structure for getting people to talk; noting you'd like to talk on the chat window, perhaps?

Anthøny 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wearing headphones is also a good idea, to avoid echoes. Daniel (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I always mute my microphone when not talking AND.. use headphones ;) — E talk aussie 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

/delivery

I was just wondering if we wanted to do a delivery system like what the Wikipedia weekly has. Then later we have uploaded the episode we send round a note / template to everyone in the list. What do you guys think? ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 07:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

sound files

Dan's Note: It would be better if Privatemusings would include metadata in the MP3 files such as titles... I did it myself to the above files by importing them to iTunes, tweaking the title / artist / album / release date info, and then re-uploading them. It makes them look a lot nicer on playlists and such. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Dan - now I'll just have to figure out how to! - Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In iTunes, navigate to the audio file, right-click, and press "get info". It's plain sailing from there ;) You will, I imagine, need to re-upload if you're going to tweak the info, so perhaps it's best just to "start a fresh leaf" and start inserting info from there ;) Regards, Anthøny 09:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anarchism vs. structure

Dovetailing with the dicsussion on 18 April about the AGF challenge is a larger philosophical dilemma about Wikipedia's dedication to free contribution and community decision-making (which we might loosely term anarchist principles, in the best sense of that word) weighed against the need for order and structure. The more we favor one, the more the other will necessarily suffer. I think this could be fertile territory for some interesting discussion.

For example: I've been told that we can't protect TFAs, since we want to demonstrate our love for free and open contributions from whoever happens to drop by. But what does this lead to? When Balzac was featured on the front page (to pick just one especially obvious example), those of us watching it had 24 unrelenting hours of reverting "ball sack" jokes.

As I say, I think this could provide for some interesting discussion. – Scartol • Tok 11:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Participants might think about this in terms of productive WikiProjects as well. The Military History project is the most organized and most product WikiProject, I think. How much anarchy do we want to sacrifice for productivity? Awadewit (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

skypecast with version 2.0

According the FAQ of skype you need Skype 1.4 or better to use skypecast but when I try to join a skypecast with version 2.0 (the most recent version there is for linux) it does not work.

Are there linux users who have found a way to join the NotTheWikipediaWeekly skypecast? If so; how are you doing it? --Walter (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You can dial in a number. It never works for me normally, and dialling is the only way. Majorly (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mac and Linux/Unix versions are not updated near as fast as the MS versions and often do not work that well.--Filll (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Skype chat problems

I – and another user last time, if I'm not mistaken – have problems accessing the Skype Chat. I don't suppose we'd consider using IRC instead? – Scartol • Tok 11:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't have an audio conversation on IRC. Majorly (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant just the text chat part. – Scartol • Tok 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I created a channel, here. Majorly (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
NTWW has its own, dedicated Skype Chat channel, called "NotTheWikipediaWeekly". A channel moderator (aka, an admin, host or op, depending on which OS you use/which version you use) will need to approve you joining. Ask Seddon, privatemusings or Dorttroffel. Anthøny 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned users

This looks like it might be getting to be a bigger issue and we need to develop some policies here. Durova has discussed it in her blog here. So who is invited into the skypechats and when? Who is invited into the voice chats and when? And who is invited into podcasts and when? Given that Skype has some security vulnerabilities, how open do we want to be?--Filll (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What are the security vulnerabilities? I tend to think that Privatemusings started this podcast as a way to let people be heard who are not normally heard. With the proper moderator (or host), I do not think letting banned users in on the chats is a big problem. daveh4h 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It is best that I not be too specific about the security vulnerabilities here. I hope you understand.--Filll (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What happend yesterday?

Skypecast of 2008-04-25 @ 20:00 UTC. Nothing to see here about the location of the skypecast or notice. None in #notthewikipediaweekly or in #wikipedia-en who knew about it ...--Walter (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. We have them fairly regularly. The best way to be involved is to download Skype and test it ahead of time. Then join the main NTWW chat. And then you can be included from there.--Filll (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes but I, and at least also Majorly, where waiting for publication of the connection information. The skypecast telephonenumber or a chatroom. --Walter (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it was early enough in the day that there was no skypecast number because I could not open a Skypecast. You have to join the public chat by clicking here.--Filll (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NTWW-subscription

Please make it the same with as Signpost and Wikipedia Weekly templates so it would not distort WP:CBB. Thank you. Renata (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done Dorftrottel (bait) 12:00, April 29, 2008

Editing and uploading audio files

I was going to leave this note on Privatemusings talk page, then envisioned him telling me that this is a wiki project, so thought it best to leave the note here.  :-) I note that there are currently two episodes that do not have uploaded audio yet. Is that right? Why is this? Does someone need some help? I offer my help (as if that is worth anything!) if anyone needs it, if not for the current recordings then the future ones. daveh4h 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this project is not as organized as The Wikipedia Weekly. And anyone can host and record etc, instead of some experts. And so we are not as familiar with the tools that have to be used. We are still trying to understand how to do this.--Filll (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That, and the last two were recorded only in the last couple days. Give it some time. I haven't followed Wikipedia Weekly for a long time, but the same things apply there as well. - Zero1328 Talk? 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
actually, I'd love some help for the casts I may record in the future, dave - do you have some audio editing program by any chance? - it would be great if you'd be able to do the 'post' on a recording (I don't really do anything very clever, just a bit of compression, and convert to ogg) - and if you're more of a wiki editor type, then the updating of the various episode pages might be really cool too? - what do you think would best suit you? Hopefully the episodes currently recorded, but not online, will appear shortly too...! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

not the next skypecase.....

but the one after (or maybe even after that!) - I'm interested in hosting a skypecast on Friday 9th May at 00.30 UTC (that's thursday evening US, Fri. morning Oz time...) - there's heaps to talk about flying round at the mo... but we'll undoubtedly cover the oz chapter. Just thought I'd drop in some advance notice here for the observant... sign up will be in the usual way, in due course... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Podcasting for luddites

This site has free telephone conferencing. It's a long-distance call in the US, but otherwise there's no charge. All the reviews online seem to be good, and that it's not a scam (it appears to be promotional for the company's other services). Here's a podcast that uses this service (the service includes a recording function). This could be a way for NotTheWikipediaWeekly to tap into some of the great mass of people who are not on Skype. I wonder if it would be difficult to hook people on the telephone conference and Skype together on air at the same time...--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)--Pharos (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds really interesting; thank you for the link. :) DurovaCharge! 03:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we could dial in to this service from a Skype conference call, linking the Skype group together with a dial-in group on regular POTS (plain old telephone service) for people who did not want to give their phone number out.--Filll (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Episode ten?

... as in, anyone know when it'll be up? I think episode 11 was today! - Alison ❤ 04:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

let me know if you (filll? anyone?) want a hand getting the files online folks - I reckon we should aim to get the audio online within 24hours of the conversation happening, otherwise we might lose topical relevance... I'm not sure if I've made that deadline every time - but it's certainly one to aim for - and obviously the sooner the better is a good thing too! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No probs :) I think you were away for that episode and someone else (Filll?) did the audio capture. There were some technical issues, though. A number of interesting topics had come up (and it was my first one!) - Alison ❤ 06:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record: Yesterday's episode was #13, i.e. there are four (!) episodes waiting in queue to be uploaded. This should definitely improve, especially since our current "featured" episode is still episode 9, and this is visibly documented in the NTWW-subscription template. I've also changed the Next Skypecast date in the box so other people know beforehand; another first... Dorftrottel (talk) 13:49, May 1, 2008


We do have indeed have a backlog of sorts. This is because we do not know how to use our tools very well. For example, I have had the Pamela recorder fail on me a few times, I was unable to make the Freecorder Skype recorder ever work although I worked on it for hours, and I only made the new Call Graph recorder work consistently last night after the Skype discussion was over (but Seddon69 recorded it, thankfully). I have had to upgrade Call Graph two or three times in the last couple of days and fool with it considerably to get it to work. I have also made several attempts to upgrade my soundcard driver files and I was finally successful yesterday; I think outdated drivers were causing me trouble with Audacity and Call Graph and possibly Pamela (maybe Freecorder as well?). I have read and watched a few dozen Audacity editing tutorials in the last couple of days and I was instructing Seddon69 in how to use Audacity last night (the documentation that comes with Audacity is awful but thankfully third parties have written tutorials and recorded youtube and google videos showing how to use Audacity for different tasks). I think that we are getting up to speed on Audacity and can now write mp3 and ogg files after editing the recordings. My goal is to have:

  • Several people able to record these Skype discussions in solid pieces to increase flexibility, and have each discussion recorded by more than one person as a backup.
  • Several people able to edit recordings and write them as mp3 and ogg files so that we are more flexible

Here is the current status, as far as I know:

  • Episode 9: Currently on the page
  • Episode 10: Recorded by Durova. She had trouble dealing with its conversion to ogg, so she sent copies to me and Privatemusings to ask for help a few days ago. I can now edit and convert these files. I do not know how to upload them yet however. This was the Seth Finkelstein episode I think.
  • Episode 11: Not sure who recorded it, but I think it was Durova. I have not looked at these. This was the Brian Bergstein episode I think.
  • Episode 12: I tried to record this with the Pamela recorder but Pamela failed after 2 15 minute segments, so we only have 30 minutes recorded. After this, I realized I had to have a backup person recording as well and understand these tools better. This episode had Alison on it.
  • Episode 13: I tried to record it with Call Graph but I was unable to make Call Graph work. Thankfully Seddon69 recorded the whole thing using Call Graph which was about 70 minutes or so. It will have to be edited a bit and converted but Seddon69 now knows how to do this. Seddon69 recorded it in one chunk but expressed an interest in breaking it into shorter pieces, which he can do with Audacity if he wants. This episode also had Alison on it.

Hopefully this helps people understand where we are and why. I apologize for the delay, but we really did not know what we were doing when we started and had to learn as we went along and deal with a lot of software failures as well. I also would like to invite anyone else who is interested in helping to download some of these tools and familiarize themselves with the tools so we are not so dependent on just one or two people to record and edit these 'casts.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Filll :) As it happens, I use Audacity quite a bit here and, next time I'm about, I'll have a go at capturing a backup of the audio. At least if the main 'recorder' has dropout due to bandwidth issues or whatever, it'll be possible to stitch together a full show from everyone else's. That could be handy! Thanks for putting in all the hard work on the tech stuff - Alison ❤ 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I have just finished listening to all the 5 segments of episode 10 and converting them into ogg format, renaming them and adding a few notes. I do not know how to upload these files; I presume they have to be placed on Commons? What do I do? What about the licensing? We also have mp3 versions of these segments which can be uploaded but I do not know how to do this either.--Filll (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

cheers, Filll! - you've worked it out great - and after twiddling with the filenames in the template, ep 10 is all online... I've also thrown the mp3 file you skyped over to me online now, so both our avid listeners can now download or stream the latest audio - I'm going to grab a cup of tea and have a listen myself! - once again thanks for your efforts! - Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

IRC Channel

What is the name of the IRC Channel for this project? I should link it on this page so that people can use it for assistance in joining.--Filll (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

it's #notthewikipediaweekly - but I'm afraid I don't know how to make it link cleverly! - Privatemusings (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Like that? - Alison ❤ 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

a very simple web front page.....

is now online - take a look, and thoughts most welcome.... (I find it handy to stream the mp3s this way...) - Privatemusings (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks, Dan. DurovaCharge! 05:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/reset}}

I've created a template to reset the Our Next Skypecast section after a Skypecast has finished. There's also a hidden notice, but here goes anyway: Click to edit the Our Next Skypecast section, then replace the entire content —after you copied it to the appropriate new Episode subpage— with {{subst:Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/reset}} . Dorftrottel (troll) 22:46, April 19, 2008

And of course, edit the template as you think best. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:49, April 19, 2008

Nominating our executive producer

Meet Samantha, executive producer of NTWW?

NTWW needs a visual emblem of some sort. Samantha here has been my boss for a while, and she's generously offered to supervise NTWW as well. She'll accept a stipend of catnip and treats in return for her management skills, occasional commentary, and modeling services. Shall we accept her offer? DurovaCharge! 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think she would be great. I would love to get her recorded as well.--Filll (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Aww! We should appoint her just on the basis of cuteness :) Majorly (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Awww. Cuute :) However, we need a lolcat phrase on there somewheres! - Alison ❤ 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
O HAI THAR!

This any good? :) Majorly (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Madame may condescend to pose on a solid color blanket, for cleaner contrast. DurovaCharge! 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See our gallery of executive portraits. Should be useful when (I hope) we adapt the skypecasts for upload to YouTube. DurovaCharge! 10:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Newbies ar yummy.

Episode 12

Episode 12 ogg files are uploaded. I am not quite sure I have the licensing for the 4th piece (Ntww12_o.ogg or Ntww12 o.ogg) correct so someone should check that. Also note that the numbering is unusual since by accident we continued to record after the 'cast was officially over. A discussion of the Ombudsmen Committee was so interesting I made a separate short file (about 3 minutes long) including this issue and placed it on the page as a "fourth bit" of the 12th episode, although officially there are only three bits (I listed the fourth bit as an Addendum). If people are interested, I can place this fourth bit at the end of the 1st bit but I do not know if we need to be that fancy.

I also recorded a lot of political discussion by accident but I will probably erase that since it was not really germane to our discussion about Wikipedia. It is not currently edited or uploaded anywhere.

I now have the mp3 versions of these 3 sections of Episode 12, as well as the "4th section", the addendum for Episode 12, available for placement on our outside website, courtesy of Dan Tobias.


Durova's connection was not totally solid for Episode 12 so she cuts out a lot. However, I edited out most of the cruft so it is a little easier to listen to.--Filll (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll the license is GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0 not all CC-by sa's. The extra chat at the end will need the promission of the partisapents to license. Zginder 2008-05-02T14:27Z (UTC)

Ok fair enough. I will remove the link for now. I have no idea what you said about the license. The licensing I do not understand.--Filll (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I list below the participants in Episode 12. Show your agreement to releasing the 3 minute discussion on the Ombudsmen Committee by signing below your name. I believe that the main participants were User:Seddon69 and User:Martijn Hoekstra. I will be glad to mail the file to anyone who wants to listen to it first but I do not think there is anything objectionable in the file. --Filll (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to release the discussion about the Ombudsman Committee

--Filll (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't there, but will sign anyway. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks everyone. I will now release this.--Filll (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another idea

As each episode goes by, there are some topics which we do not get to. I wonder if people think that a list of all the topics suggested, with links to the episodes where certain topics are discussed, would be of interest? That way we would not lose track of topics we meant to discuss but did not get to for one reason or another. Also, this would provide a reminder of topics we had wanted to discuss. In addition, readers could see a list or an index of topics they could easily search, and links to the episode or episodes where these topics are discussed. If there were 50 or 100 episodes, it would be quite a job to go through each episode page and find all the episodes in which a given subject is discussed. A list of topics with links would make this task far easier. Comments?--Filll (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Zginder 2008-05-02T17:26Z (UTC)

Adding new episodes

This post will most likely not make sense to most people, but for the benefit of Fill and any others uploading new episodes, the blank templates are now located at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Draft/XX. For example, when uploading episode 14:

Anthøny 10:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Um, why is that necessary? Formatting a new episode subpage takes about 10 Minutes at best, and it is as simple as clicking the redlink on the last episode's subpage, copypasting the navigation header and box from the earlier episode subpage, adjusting it for the new number, and copypasting the info from the #Our next Skypecast section. Dorftrottel (criticise) 12:23, May 6, 2008
    • Put simply, because Filll created epsiode pages for the next 5 or so episodes. He has requested that, rather than them being deleted (he put some effort into creating them), they are simply moved to a new name, so as not to be included in a Special:Prefixindex transclusion on Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly. Hence this system. I hope that explains things. Anthøny 17:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to preformat the ep pages, but ok. Dorftrottel (bait) 17:07, May 7, 2008
Take it up with Fill; as I said, it wasn't my idea. I simply implemented the remedial measures. Anthøny 22:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers for correcting descriptions?

While I was compiling the Master topic list I realized that our description of the topics covered in each episode might be slightly inaccurate. That is, not all the topics described in each episode description are necessarily covered, and some other topics that are not described were discussed. Any mistakes you find when listening to these, please let us know so we can correct our documentation.--Filll (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA special

I am going to run for adminship and I will keep a audio diary of my ordeal. I will them make it a episode. Zginder 2008-05-08T15:02Z (UTC)

sounds very interesting Zginder! - would you be willing to have a 'talk to zginder' episode as part of the actual RfA process? - something like a 30minute slot where anyone can come and have a chat with you / ask the sorts of questions that people ask at RfA? - it might be something quite interesting to try! - (and hey - the best of luck with the RfA too!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


New episode delivery

I was just thinking should we have a delivery whenever a new episode comes out like on the WikipediaWeekly. I can setup the subscription page and everything e.t.c and then the task can be split between mine and stevecrossins bot. Well reply back here when someones wants to :D. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Easily enough done, sounds like a plan. Seddon69 (talk)
Well I have started the page now. Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/delivery tell me what you think. I will sort out the actuall deliveries soon. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 11:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
great stuff, addshore - thanks! - don't suppose you know anything about hooking up an RSS feed into a website? - we could do with one of those here - Privatemusings (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering but on {{NTWW-subscription}} should we change the subscribe link to go to this page? ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How Wikipedia Weekly does it

See here. They record many hours and edit it down. They use an acoustic levelling program. They use commercial recording software. I gather they mainly use Macintosh software and hardware. They are now staring with video casts. The last interview with Jimbo (epsidoe 48 of WW) has been at least partly done in video.--Filll (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the video of the last interview? The youtube link was from Wikimania 2007. WODUP 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did have it but I lost it again. Best to ask them.--Filll (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm.... I was not aware we had video podcasts. All the files on the server are mp3 or oog, not in any way video. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 23:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's a category for video at http://wikipediaweekly.org/category/video/. WODUP 05:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
THat has been there for a while with only two videos added to it, which appear to be no longer on the server anymore. THose were both from about last years Wikimania. NOhting is currently planned.

After talking on skype with several users i think that its about time that we had a logo. I was going to tackle this myself but i felt that we should attempt to do this ourselves. I think that either making a collaborative effort on a logo could be one option or perhaps having a mini competition to cut down on serveral suggestions or something I now open this up to everyone to discuss on wiki. Seddon69 (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I tried to create a logo, but it didn't work out so well. I'm no good at creating images. :( WODUP 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode 17

How long does it usually take for it to be uploaded to Dan's site? I ask because I like to listen to one file. I listened to #16 that way (my first time listening to NTWW). Enigma message 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I started listening on the page here, and the intro said Episode 18, not 17. Enigma message 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be willing to record over that. We had been placeholding Episode 17 for another purpose, but that hadn't been loaded yet. DurovaCharge! 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I wanted to throw an idea out there. I'm not sure it would make for a good proposal for the next general episode, but I was wondering about having a side/special/unrelated episode for the proposals/disputes/etc for WT:FICT. I think it would be very healthy if the conversations there had some kind of real human interaction, as well as a chance to invite outside opinion. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a super idea, actually. I'd love to tune in, primarily because I know nothing of the topic and would love to get some perspective on it - Alison ❤ 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
sounds good to me too - are you involved, Ned? - could you help identify some good people to ask along - representing all sides of the debate? - are you in a position to 'host' or would you like any help or advice? - let's plan this baby! - it's a great idea.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I would not be in a position to be host, as I'm definitely involved. One of the reasons I proposed this is that I've noticed my own comments have deteriorated a bit here and there, and I too have let the frustration get to me at times. But even as frustrated as I've gotten, I'm convinced that those involved in these debates are probably agreeing on more than they think, and even if we're not, a different venue would likely help all of us get some much needed perspective. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to say that I think I wouldn't be able to host, but I'm not sure how others involved in the debate would feel about it. They'd probably be more comfortable if it was someone else. Though I'm more than glad to help out with any other aspect in getting this off the ground. -- Ned Scott 04:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. Wonderful idea. This is something I'm rather opinionated on, as I'm an editor who mostly writes about fictional topics, namely 24. Once again, a great idea. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 07:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

further to the above - I'm happy to host, but know absolutely nothing about the issues at hand.... perhaps if we draw up a list of people who would be good to get along, representing all sides of the debate, it might help..... if you copy a list below, I'm happy to contact people suggesting / inviting them to come along - let's try and make this happen in a fortnight or so.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I think it might be most rewarding to draw up a few points of discussion related to coverage of fiction generally, what with the PLOT discussion on WT:NOT and the new proposed-something at Wikipedia:Plot summaries. I would, in that case, recommend fairly careful choice of guests/panelists in order to be representative. SamBC(talk) 12:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much just who wants to be involved. NTWW isn't really formal :) -- Ned Scott 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Count me under the interested/involved category. --MASEM 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I'm willing to get involved as a panelist or whatever you would call them, if the time is convenient. I'm in the UK, available most evenings and can arrange to be available daytimes except Tuesdays and Thursdays... SamBC(talk) 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be be there also.DGG (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we start throwing out possible dates/times? -- Ned Scott 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed date and time (UTC)

Well, I'm just going to post when I'm available in the next week to get the ball rolling on a possible time:

  • after 01:00 (UTC) on May 25, 2008
  • after 02:00 (UTC) on May 26, 2008
  • after 01:00 (UTC) on May 27, 2008
  • after 02:00 (UTC) on May 28, 2008 and any time that day until 15:00 (UTC) May 29, 2008
  • after 02:00 (UTC) on June 1, 2008 and any time that day until 07:00 (UTC) June 2, 2008

-- Ned Scott 23:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We're fishing for high profile guests right now. The last time we tried an informal schedule while we were hooking guests it caused serious problems. I'll leave word as soon as things firm up. :) DurovaCharge! 05:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
we can probably pencil in a good time for the WP:FICT discussion though - I'd certainly be happy to host, and maybe we can organise some sort of sign up procedure (pretty much per the above, I guess....).
I'll get the ball rolling by suggesting 02.00 UTC on May 20th - discussion will be limited to the 'FICT' issues. If we can pencil this in (ned) - then let's figure out a subpage or something to allow folk to sign up etc. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused.. May 20th is past and gone.. And is Durova talking about guests for the FICT discussion, or the next general episode? I was under the impression that the FICT discussion would be something on the side. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
jeez - sorry for adding to the confusion! - I meant 02.00 UTC on May 28th for the FICT discussion only, which I think will work well as a specific focus for a discussion..... cheers, and apologies! Privatemusings (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem there is your left with no-one in Europe who isn't an insomniac, shiftworker, or sufficiently without real-world committments that they can sacrifice a night's sleep (or most of it). I certainly couldn't manage anything like that. SamBC(talk) 09:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
yeah - not so great! - how's about 10.00 UTC on May 28th? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I could potentially do that, but I'm not sure that determining a time is so good before finding out who might guest, and then checking times. Well, I suppose it works both ways. Is there a potential guest list already? SamBC(talk) 11:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The guest list is what you see here, in who has noted an interest in being involved. I'm still not sure what Durova is talking about, but I'd like to prioritize the time for those already involved in the FICT discussion, simply because it is them who this will benefit most. -- Ned Scott 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I will participate, but out of curiosity is there a time that the three contents are all in sun, or at least close to it? Seems like this may be a problem. G'day, cheers, and thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is, it'll be a time during the work day for some who actually work for a living, such as myself... that's been a problem for me with many of the past times of these programs. I'd prefer an early-evening time when I'm home. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at this time zone map and it looks like the US, UK, and Australia split the world into three chunks 8 hours apart (west coasts of US and Austraiia). I'm curious how the other times were determined. Were they 8am, 4pm, and midnight? No wonder the sun never set on the british empire. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
10:00 UTC is 5 AM on the East coast of the US, and 2 AM on the West coast--and on a weekday. If the europeans want to have a discusson without us people in the Americas, that would be the time to arrange it.

So I guess we need to know if each continent happens to be made up of morning, afternoon, or night people. For me it's mostly determined by when I work, which changes from day to day, but if we want to do it on the 28th (which I think is wednesday, but then who's wednesday is it?) I could do the afternoon or evening shift. Other days I can do different shifts. It's an interesting problem: I usually think finding a time to call my relatives on the east coast is a problem! I will say I am most interested in hearing Privatemusings talk to Ned and DGG and would easily forgo my timezone's participation if that helped to make it happen. I don't know where they live, but statistically they're probably on the East Coast of the US, which could give you a few hours to play with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: one guest for a panel we're developing won't be available for a week and a half. So tentatively we're looking at Saturday for our next session, with guests to discuss African issues. DurovaCharge! 23:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

huh? -- Ned Scott 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Panel guests, Ned. Hop onto Skype and I'll explain. DurovaCharge! 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
For the FICT discussion? -- Ned Scott 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone join the skypecast for the African-related skypecast? Also, if I'm unable to make it, can you ask the guest if they've encountered cases where a topic has been better covered in European languages than the native language of the people covered by the topic? Andjam (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this and reply sooner. Yes, normally any editor in good standing is welcome to join our Skypecasts. DurovaCharge! 09:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there something I can click on to test if my skype will work correctly? I've had it installed for a while, but I've never made a call. My account is pfisher5 if that helps. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (Contributions) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:FICT continued.... nearly there....

Let's pencil the 28th as the date we're aiming for - could I ask all perspective participants to indicate the range of times they could be available below (like Ned above) - also if you could characterise your position and your expertise on this issue in a couple of words, it might be really helpful.

  • Privatemusings - Available 00.00 - 11.00 UTC, May 28th - (dis)interested observer - no background knowledge.
  • I'd be interested but have no idea what skype is, or even if I have a microphone, which I assume I would need. I could likely be available 20:00 UTC onwards, May 28th, assuming technical issues are surmounted. Just to clarify, May 28th is being bandies about as a date, but what do we mean by that, 00:00 to 23:59 UTC, or otherwise? Hiding T 08:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If you'd like to get started with Skype, e-mail me and I'll bring you up to speed. Some people join us without a microphone by listening to the audio and typing replies. DurovaCharge! 09:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Where does this stand? If we're really going to get people, we need to plan more than a fay or two ahead. DGG (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm still interested, but I'm waiting to see if the day and time allow me to participate. Maybe we should spam a few talk pages to increase participation. It would be really interesting if TTN would talk a bit, for example. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I get the feeling that this first WP:FICT discussion might be more of a "test run", of sorts. I still want to push to get as many editors in on this as we can, and agree that having TTN there too would be very interesting, but we can always plan a second talk if this first one doesn't get fully off the ground (or have a second talk even if it does, just for people who weren't able to participate in the first). Since there's no real formality to this anyways, we could have as many of these Skypecasts as we want on WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sounds reasonable. Has anyone figured out an easy way to convert the UTC time to the times in the US, Britain and Australia? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

<- I feel a bit culpable in not building proper momentum here - and apologies that other stuff has distracted me from organising this one a bit better - how does 23:15 UTC, May 28th fit with all eyes presently here? - as Ned says, we could do this more than once.... another option is to have a conference call to plan the conference call! - not quite as crazy as an idea as it sounds - a list of the best people to persuade along could be discussed (or just drafted below? hint!!) - and we can work on finding the best time. On the other hand - if 3 or 4 intereted protaganists can make the time above - then lets just record one, and see where we go from there.... sorry for not devoting more time to this, but I look forward to discussing it when we get it together! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(note: that's 7:15 PM NY Summer time tomorrow, Wednesday)-- I can make it if I can link by ordinary phone.DGG (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC) --
I see the forthcoming talk is on other topics. Not going to try. DGG (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One possible explanation for the lack of activity with this is that a lot of us have gotten side tracked with the recent WP:RFAR clarification involving User:TTN. Several editors are also ending a school year at universities and high school, which can also involve moving, packing up, celebration, and celebration recovery. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate to crap out on this, but today turned out to be a bad day. I've got lots of family over, which is fine when you are typing on the computer, but makes it impossible to have a good vocal conversation (little kids, and they like to come up to me every 5 minutes asking me what I'm doing on the computer). I'll try to get my act together for the next attempt. Sorry guys. -- Ned Scott 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Live from New York... it's video episodes!

Since the start of 2008, we New Yorkers have been holding a series of salon-style discussion sessions at the our meetups, and we have been recording them on video. It occurs to me now that these come-as-you-are presentations and discussions, accessible to the 1/15 of US Wikipedians who live in our metro area, rather share the spirit of NotTheWikipediaWeekly. So, I would like to hitch our cart to your wagon and possibly repackage these as NotTheWikipediaWeekly "video episodes". On {{NTWW-subscription}}, they could either run as "Video Episode 1" etc. during slow periods when no new audio episodes are being released, or possibly you could add them along with an audio episode as a bonus. We already have 2 "video episodes" in the can, from January (meetup page) and March (meetup page), and you can start running these whenever you like. We should produce a new one once every two months or so; our next meetup is on Sunday. Of course, in the future I could see other meetups creating "video episodes" as well.--Pharos (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very cool. I look forward to the next one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The idea would be to spread it through {{NTWW-subscription}}, starting with the episodes in the can (which are only a few months old), and then proceeding to new episodes, at whatever slots are convenient on the NTWW schedule. I'm not sure what permission we would need to start this.--Pharos (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you need permission other than getting the people here to agree. If you're going to put the videos on commons or here they need to be in ogg theora like these videos. Also, I imagine you guys are doing the best you can, but you might try placing the microphone somewhere different because it can be hard to hear the audio. I was really looking forward to DGG's speech on librarians but I couldn't understand what he was saying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 16:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think these sorts of things are basically bad ideas, and much too dangerous given our current climate and culture. If one does go ahead with such things, I suggest strongly that participants be required to sign a disclaimer that because of their participation they could very well be the subject of a variety of harassments, including stalking, intimidation, exacting of vengeance for some perceived slight, extortion, declarations of intent to inflict harm of various kinds such as revealing of personal information and death threats. Voice is bad enough, but video is starting to really push things.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. This past meetup wasn't really videotaped for the most part, because of technical difficulties, but everyone was asked if they minded being on video or in a picture. The only person videotaped (unless someone else got caught in the background) was MBisanz, and everyone who said they didn't want to be, wasn't. Filll, you may be taking this a little overboard. Enigma message 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


Well when I inadvertantly recorded a part of a NTWW conversation that I had not meant to, before I posted it online I obtained the permission of all those involved. Before we begin recording at NTWW, we make sure we have the agreement of all participants. In the state that I live in, one can serve serious jailtime for violating this. And some famous people have done jailtime, lost their careers and families and homes and all of their life savings because they recorded and released conversations without getting the appropriate permissions.
Video is even more sensitive than voice alone, since it is more personal and easier to identify participants. We have already had bad examples of extortion resulting from screwups with images at meetups. I am not saying one should be too extreme, but being aware of the potential problems and therefore careful is perfectly appropriate and prudent. You are free to disagree with me; I don't really care.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is we did get permission. We're very sensitive to this because of Newyorkbrad. Enigma message 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And so obviously, your organization was not always very sensitive to this, was it? And that is just your organization. Other organizations probably are not sensitized to it. And given the level of rancor and threats and intimidation and desires for revenge I have witnessed (most of which are not even the subject of disciplinary action or warnings), and the stalking and death threats that I have heard about or witnessed, there are probably other concerns that your organization and related organizations are not yet sensitized to. But feel free to believe that there are no problems whatsoever.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say I believe there are no problems whatsoever? The fact that Newyorkbrad was driven off the project, by itself, is evidence that there are problems. Enigma message 18:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a common trope, or meme, used by certain people with a heavy preoccupation with "stalking", "harassment", and the like, that if you're not as highly obsessed with the issue, to the point of paranoia, that's equivalent to denying that any problem at all exists in that area. JzG has on several occasions claimed that I "don't believe harassment exists", even though in my personal site essay replying to an essay on his personal site, I clearly state "harassment and stalking is a genuine problem" before criticizing the exaggerated claims of such that are used for political purpose. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

<- putting aside the issues of permission etc. (which I totally understand can be seen to be very very important) - I think video communication has gotta be a good thing, and am heading over to take a look shortly.... from my perspective, it would be fantastic for these to take residence in the 'episode' pages of this project! Swatjester has some thoughts about video stuff too - and I've been thinking about ways it might be achieved - so it's great to see that the new yorkers are a step ahead, and have gone ahead and done it! I look forward to seeing more! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mention

Just a heads up, this project was mentioned recently on the WMF Blog. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

'ain't that cool! cheers, nvc - Privatemusings (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

MP3 episodes

Hey, are episodes 17 and 18 ever going to make it to the MP3 section... not to mention "Lost Episode" 14? I like to listen to those things in my iPod, or through my car stereo (also via an iPod). *Dan T.* (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's got the mp3 file for 17 (or 14) - maybe Sed? - if so, could you bung it over my way, and I'll update our mini-site... (I'm also looking at the rss thing again - surely it can't be too hard!) - 18 is still 'in production' - being a bit of a 'special' - and will be published 6th June as a single mp3 (I've got all the files for this so far!) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I'm also waiting. I like to listen to podcasts while I'm playing arcade games, and the only other podcast I listen to hasn't released a new episode in almost two months. Cheers. Enigma message 06:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The mystery of the missing audio file. Heh. Enigma message 05:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


I and Seddon both have awful copies of 14. The audio quality is bad enough that some parts of 14 might have to be re-recorded. In any case, I do not expect episode 14 to be longer than about 15 or 20 minutes after editing since it was mainly just goofing around. The RfA attempt was done by a single editor and I have no idea where he stands in his production. I know his RfA was not successful, but beyond that I do not know what he has done towards producing a podcast about it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

candidates interviews

I've put the 8 completed interviews online now - but the mp3 file putting them all together will have to wait a short while I'm afraid - time is against me! - I hope anyone feeling brave might be able to complete the set (I'm going to be rather busy this weekend and early next week) - and for what it's worth - I offer the extent of my preparation notes for these little chats...

  • bit of personal background
  • greatest wiki strengths
  • directions the board should take
  • initiatives you would like to see happen
  • biggest wiki challenges ahead
  • why you?

actually - that's a bit embarrassing! - but it kinda works! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Intelligent Design subject area: why is the editor conduct so poor? What has been done to tackle the issues there, and what can we (the community, rather than the arbcom) do? Off-site influences on the editing atmosphere's heat: how do we counter that? Anthøny 16:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as you are not likely to get anyone from the intelligent design subject area to show up, and your entire premise is probably faulty, I think this is maybe not the best choice for a topic. But feel free to suggest it. By the way, do you have some examples of bad editor conduct? --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Probably not the best place for a debate, but of course there are examples of poor conduct! Incidentally, my entire premise is not faulty, so I beg to differ on that point, although I do respect your stance on the matter. Anthøny 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

<- how about the opportunity for a platform for Filll to offer his perspective on such issues? - it's clearly all become very heated, and it's sad to see tension between editors - maybe it could be talked out somehow? (and out of interest - I edited a bit at the ID article back in the day, and crossed paths with quite a lot of the editors still active in the area - I found it enjoyable and I learned alot - perhaps we could ask User:Kenosis along? - someone who has clearly contributed a huge amount, and might have avoided some of the polarity and disquiet?? - thoughts most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would like to set the record straight in the WP:NTWW venue, and as much as that would make for a very interesting show guaranteed to bring in listeners, it is probably best that I not present my views in a recorded show at the moment. The reason for this is mainly timing. Remember, there is an Arbcomm case currently going on that I am involved in, an RfAr that is active and I am one of the targets of this RfAr, potentially an RfC against me is being considered and possibly another Arbcomm case against me going to be formulated. Remember, I have also in the last 6 months been closely involved in two other similar Arbcomm cases. And I have been accused of an assortment of other supposedly bad behavior on Wikipedia. So it is quite a bit, frankly, and any presentation of evidence or rebuttals in a recorded forum is probably not helpful at the moment.
I have yet to personally see any evidence of heinous behavior. As I have repeatedly asked, show it to me. There are all kinds of grumblings and rumblings about bad behavior, but I have not seen anything particularly inappropriate.
Sure one or two people in a Wikiproject I used to be involved with cursed on-Wiki. Okay, so that is inappropriate, but they were cautioned. I even did some of the cautioning myself. So what? No other editors ever curse on WP?
There is an attempt to apply NPOV and NOR and RS and other WP principles by the members of this Wikiproject. So what? We are not supposed to do that?
Someone who was disruptive (and has been banned from at least 4 other online communities for being disruptive) refuses to agree to edit according to WP principles and is blocked/banned for it. And when this disruptive editor refuses to agree to edit consensually and productively, and the members of the Wikiproject request that the disruptive editor therefore be not allowed to return to edit, or at least return to edit the same articles as before, the Wikiproject is attacked for being unfair. Why? What did they do wrong? If this Wikiproject is so unfair, why have at least three other WP editors who previously advocated for his return, also advised against letting this disruptive editor return to editing at the moment?
I could just as easily reject just about every other phoney charge or claim that I have ever heard. With evidence to back it up. They are just nonsense, repeated mindlessly over and over by people who only vaguely understand the details.
I doubt if you will get Kenosis to participate, but you are welcome to try.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The real issue as not the ID editors, most of whom have been productive and trusted Wikipedia contributors for years, but rather the campaign being run against them by WikipediaReview regulars like Cla68, Sceptre, Moulton, The undertow, etc. at WikipediaReview. Now that's a topic worth discussing.

For example, Sceptre's RFAR on them is not all it appears: Immediately after filling this RFRA Sceptre started a thread at WikipediaReview with the title "Attention ID editors, a Category 3 shitstorm is approaching..." [2] There he gloats "I doubt I'm a vexatious litigant - i'm pretty sure that to be one, you need to have multiple failed attempts. Most of my attempts for RFArs have passed."[3] Note the fact that Moulton is all over Sceptre's thread.

Sceptre's RFAR is simply more WikipediaReview disruption meant to support their own; it, along with Cla68's threat to out ID editors to the press, is just another offshoot of Moulton's multi-site campaign against certain Wikipedia editors. We shouldn't be using NTWW as another channel for Moulton and his merry gang of WikipediaReview supporters to attack Wikipedians in good standing. Just my two cents. Odd nature (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, that would be a far livelier show. And more accurate. --Filll (talk | wpc) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For some sense of the word accurate in the Colbert sense? For someone who offers the Assume Good Faith challenge, Filll, this is some of the most hypocritical stuff I've ever seen. SirFozzie (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
By these gratuitous personal attacks, you really discredit yourself. Please try to control yourself. You can go and vent your venom someplace else, thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


shall we do it, then? - I'll drop a note at your pages, and hope you might be tempted to sign up below! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you do it, I hope it will be more evenhanded than the highly one-sided presentation above, which propagates the meme of the "evil WR crowd" that's popular in certain circles here. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the biases on both sides, I think that it is unlikely that anyone who is a strong supporter of WR or anyone who is doubtful about the positive virtues of WR will ever view any show about WR to be "evenhanded". Given that many of those who are WR supporters will excuse any bad behavior by their fellow WR editors, any discussion that does not praise WR to the sky and state that every single editor at WR is just misunderstood but really on the side of truth and justice will be rejected as biased by WR supporters. If some want to blindly believe that anyone at WR could never ever do any wrong under any circumstances and dismiss any reports or examples of questionable behavior, then they are allowed to take that position. But to demand that all others must be forced to take this same position is asking a bit much, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that many of those who are WR opponents will excuse any bad behavior by their fellow BADSITE-bashers, any discussion that does not call WR a wretched hive of scum and villainy with no redeeming value whatsoever and state that every single person who posts to WR is a horrible stalker, harasser, or dangerous vandal will be rejected as biased by WR opponents. If some want to blindly believe that nobody at WR could never ever have a valid point under any circumstances and dismiss any reports or examples of them being right about anything, then they are allowed to take that position. But to demand that all others must be forced to take this same position is asking a bit much, frankly. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me I do not think that sort of dialogue is helpful. I have not excused any bad behavior of Odd nature, who has made a negative comment about Wikipedia Review. Who else that is in the ID Wikiproject has made a negative comment about Wikipedia Review? Perhaps I should generate an essay with my position about Wikipedia Review, which I have not made clear before this. I also disagree with those in the ID Wikiproject on certain issues, and I have made note of this before, but perhaps since I am being accused of all sorts of villainy I will have to make a more complete study of this, since this is the equivalent of some sort of Inquisition tilting at windmills and chasing fictional cabals. Your defensiveness about BADSITES, which was a discussion I did not even participate in and might have been before my time or certainly was not aware of, just really strikes me as a bit over the top. What is it to you if some people dislike Wikipedia Review ? Who cares? Some people dislike the color orange or Ford cars too. So what? I have never claimed that no one on Wikipedia Review ever has a valid point. I do not know anyone who has ever claimed such a thing. Do you have any examples of anyone who has made such a claim?
Maybe in light of your venom filled-post, everyone else should basically bugger off and let you have the microphone to yourself for an hour or two every week so you can sing the praises of your beloved Wikipedia Review. Sounds like a great idea for a show. Make it a regular show. I am sure you will get a lot of listeners.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny how my "venom filled post" was one that was intentionally worded in a manner that precisely parallels yours. Try looking in a mirror sometime. If people were torpedoing RFAs based on the subject thinking that the color orange or Ford cars might be a "mixed bag" of good and bad rather than entirely evil, and were vigorously supporting attempts to make it Wikipedia policy that nothing that is the color orange or that depicts Ford cars, or links to any place that is orange or about Fords, is to be permitted on Wikipedia under any circumstances, then I'd be strongly opposed to them too. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)



<undent>Well Dan, I think we have some confusion here.

  • "Precisely parallels" huh? Did I use the words and phrases "basher", "scum", "wretched", "hive", "villainy", "no redeeming value whatsoever", "stalker", "harasser", "dangerous vandal", "horrible"? Somehow I seem to have missed those in my post. They are pretty emotionally charged words. Perhaps you could point out to me where I used those words, or similarly emotionally charged words?
  • I also think it is funny after that performance you implied that you took umbrage at me calling it a "venom filled post". Wow. All I can say is wow.
  • Also, you seem to be extremely upset about the results of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 which was well over a year ago. Could you point out to me how I helped with the torpedoing of that RfA? I notice two members of the ID Wikiproject voting "oppose", in addition to Riana, who frequents WR, does she not? So how could the failure of Cla68 to be appointed an admin over a year ago have anything to do with me, or the ID Wikiproject, or BADSITES or WR or anything else? I was not even aware of Cla68 at that time, so I am amazed you want to blame it on me somehow.
  • Similarly, I do not see my name appearing at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes. How can this be my fault? I see 5 of the 20 or so ID Wikiproject members voting "oppose", but I also see Krimpet, who is another WR regular, voting oppose as well. Hmmm...
  • I think your constant ranting about BADSITES policy starts to approach the pathological. Here is a message for you: I had nothing to do with the BADSITES policy. I do not even know what the BADSITES policy is, or was. I only wonder about the possibility that some websites might plant malicious code on people's machines (as I have explained to you before). And concerned with threats and criminal activity of various kinds. For example, I would not suggest anyone go to a website which is involved in the trading of child pornography. Or planning terrorist attacks.

I am stunned at your harping on this BADSITES thing over and over and over and over and over. With this level of agitation and anger and nonsense, it really makes me start to wonder. What is it to you? Who cares? Is this worth it? What on earth?

If you want to convince people of your position (which I gather is that the BADSITES policy was a bad policy and it made you really angry and still makes you really really angry somehow), I would humbly suggest you are going about it in exactly the worst possible way.

By the way, I think that it would still be great for you to have your own solo weekly show where you ranted about the BADSITES policy for an hour or so. And talked about how wonderful Wikipedia Review is. Well you might get a few listeners for a week or two anyway.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    • My apologies. I do have a pretty big "sore spot" about that issue, and an enormous "hot button" which may sometimes get triggered at inopportune times. I have issues of disagreement with you, but I was out of line to imply that you had anything to do with events of which I disapprove in which you had no actual involvement. Perhaps I just got up on the wrong side of the bed. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I accept your apology. But I get awfully tired of attacks for things I had nothing to do with, frankly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Although NTWW is a good place for lively discussion, and sometimes serves as a place where people find common ground, I don't think it's appropriate to pressure anyone to join a recorded episode. If the participants here would like to mediate via non-recorded voice chat, I really would like to help find common ground. Sometimes nuance comes across better in voice than in chat. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Durova, I'd support you if you redacted this entire section. DGG (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Having now observed what "mediation" means in this context, I think I will have to decline. I have had a taste of this "mediation" and it basically amounts to the other party producing a litany of reasons why I and others that I have edited articles with are the scum of the earth. I am not allowed to question these reasons, or in fact ask any questions at all. I am not allowed to make any comments of my own, aside from just agreeing that I and those I have edited with are villainous and heinous editors, deserving of the worst possible treatment. Somehow, that does not strike me as an appropriate or fruitful approach to mediation, and I would suggest that all who think this is a productive avenue to disabuse yourselves of this misconception. Thank you.--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

that sounds frankly surreal! - mediation can be great if everyone's open minded and up for it, and if you're not up for chatting in this project, then I totally understand.... best wishes, and good luck in resolving these thorny issues somehow.. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo at ntww.dan.info

"If you've got time, energy, expertise, and interest in helping out this little wiki project - or perhaps have just stumbled across this page, and want to know what the heck it's all about... at this point the best thing to do is to drop a note on the Wikipedia 'talk' page (just clik on 'new section' at the top of the screen) - you'll find that here. Thanks for popping by!" Didn't see a "contact us" link or somesuch. :) Enigma message 07:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

rejigged the phrase ordering a bit to try and make it clearer - and that reminds me, I must figure out a way of hooking up an RSS feed.... any ideas? thanks enigma...! Privatemusings (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Skype hiccup

Skype has had technical problems for about a day now. We've reported the problem. If you're having trouble posting to the room, please e-mail me for alternate connection. Thanks! DurovaCharge! 17:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

MP3 versions

Are the MP3 downloadable versions of recent episodes ever going to show up? It's been a long time since any have. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

/me whistles nonchalantly, and pretends that he had it all under control..! - I've put ep 23 up, and have some files for ep. 20 which I'll try and lick into shape right now - the others I haven't got, but I'll take a look and see if I can chase them up! cheers Dan, Privatemusings (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No information?

Why is there no episode information for episodes like the most recent one, Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly/Episode 24? I'd like to see when the episode was recorded, which users participated, etc. :) Gary King (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


I agree that somehow things seem to have become progressively sloppier over the last few weeks. I apologize. --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Better Information

I was around when the last chat was supposed to be recorded, but I couldn't find the Skypecast number or anything else that would have helped me get into the chat on IRC (where there was no one), the Skype public chat (which wasn't even on), or on the website. If you want new users to join in, there needs to be better communication. If the info was actually posted somewhere and I missed it, I apologize, but it certainly wasn't anywhere that I thought to look.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for your difficulty. I have not been around for a couple of weeks. When I am on, I keep the Skype public chat open and available for any who want to drop by. Someone else should have been in there looking for newcomers, and I guess they have forgotten that part recently, or at least during the last chat. Did you try the IRC channel? I do not know how regularly it is staffed. You might have also tried posting a message here on this page, although if the participants were being sloppy, they might not have even noticed. --Filll (talk | wpc) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I was the only one in the IRC room and the Skype public chat said "the host of this chat is not currently online". It's ok, I'll try again next time.--Danaman5 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I am the host, so maybe if I am not online the room is not active. Hmmm. Well maybe someone else should start a public room when I am not online then. Volunteers?--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Participation

I'd love to participate by text, but I am unable to use Skype. Any other way to participate? -[[Ryan]] (me) (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really... Al Tally talk 23:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Skype has a text mode, so if you can download Skype you can participate in text through Skype, although it is not so appealing if you cannot also hear the conversation. However, some people have done it and found it useful. People have tried to integrate IRC in as well and there is a NTWW IRC channel, but I am not sure the experience would be worth much since so few of the NTWW group use IRC to augment the ongoing discussion; they use the Skype text mode instead. About the only thing that would help is to have a friend with Skype and IRC try to include you but it would be clumsy probably. Another option which we have used a couple of times is through the regular phone system in the US and Canada. Other countries are possible too, but then you would have to find someone with an upgraded version of Skype who had bought phone access to your part of the world. Eventually there may be other software tools that are compatible with Skype, and integrate Skype in, but so far no one has managed to reverse engineer Skype to do this. Anyway, those are the options that I can think of off the top of my head.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

RSS feed... it's a start...

I tried to pester people about this for ages, and found it hard to get anywhere.. so eventually I just tried to figure it out myself... and surprisingly enough I think I've got it working!

Here's the URL for our shiny new RSS feed - http://ntww.dan.info/ntwwfeed.rss - this allows you to subscribe via iTunes etc. and is quite funky...

As you can see I've only bunged 6 episodes in there to start with - partly because I'm a bit short of time, and am also building the feed manually... If you're feeling helpful, please do edit the feed and get those other episodes up there! it's not rocket science to build that feed - and all help is most appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ep 25

cant help but notice this never came out of the tubes...supposed to be about the main page change proposals, right? i only see ep 26, and it doesnt mention it. JoeSmack Talk 16:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Next Skypecast chat thing seems a little outdated

I don't know how to update it myself, but it lists the next chat as being on August 12. Enigma message 20:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out, enigma... we're going to have to try and find ways to make sure this sort of stuff doesn't slip too far! - I'll fix it up now... Privatemusings (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are the iTunes podcasts up to date?

I noticed that the date of "release" does not appear when I download from iTunes. The last one had Raul in it, is that the latest? Perhaps we could find out why the date does not appear? I might be able to help on that issue if you'd like. Maury (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing I wanted to know was if the podcasts could be uploaded to dan's website. I'm getting impatient here! :) Enigma message 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry 'nig! - there's something quite interesting (I think) for you (and others) up there now.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ps. - Maury - some help would be wonderful!! - We're not the most technical / organised folk out there, so if you have any ideas for ways in which you might be able to help, it'd be great to hear them :-) Thanks heaps! Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NYB conversation

Was it episode 30 or 31? Enigma message 03:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

yes. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)well apparently there's an ep. 30 out there that hasn't been uploaded yet - hence the move 'on-wiki' to 31.... I'm both a bit lazy, and not really bothered by numbering issues, so haven't updated the 'off-wiki' numbering.... this post will self-destruct in 30 seconds to protect the intrigue for future wiki historians about the famous 'missing episode' (although actually we've got a few!!)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Not_The_Wikipedia_Weekly/Archive_1&oldid=1147984947"