Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial Project Thoughts

Since I was recruited for this project as a Podcaster, I'm not sure if I should add my own. It seems notable enough as the first low-carb Podcast and it's almost as old as the Podcast medium itself. However, In keeping with WP:OR policy, I don't think I should add it. Thoughts? BrianZ(talk) 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Vs. Non-Notable

One of the major things we need to work out is getting notable podcasts on, and non-notable off. <Myself I created two articles on what I felt was notable: "The Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack", and "Off Topic with Matt and Dave". Both I feel are notable enough, Off Topic is new...but has a rapidly growing fanbase. Perhaps just an article on jay and Jack would be better. But as for BrianZ's question above, I think that if you think that you're own podcast is notable...have someone else create the article. Below I'm creating another topic on requested podcasts, and they can be reviewed and determined if notable. If they are, and we make articles on them...we have to prove they are notable right off the bat so speedy delete-happy people don't shoot them down without giving them a chance. Ganfon 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that more notable podcasts should have articles, the bar has been set absurdly high in the past and I think we should consider a set of standards that would help determine and explain notability. If anyone has any ideas about that, think's its a terrible or decent idea, please post. I think it will help alot as a filter down the road, because as mentioned above, too many obviously notable Podcasts have been deleted. IE: Israelisms podcast, The Lost Podcast w/ Jay and Jack are a few that come to mind. Likewise, there are other specific podcasts that have articles that have seemed to stood the test of time, despite being perhaps not notable at all, or filled with false information, written purely to promote the actual cast. There almost should be a list of podcasts that have their own articles within wikipedia, something that I don't really like the idea of, but it would be helpful to know how many have articles if we are going to start cleaning them up and improving their NPOV etc.. REALLY glad this project is taking off, looking forward to good things!Testerer 02:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we could say a notable Podcast has at least one regular media (Print, TV, legitimate News organizations) mention to garner notable status. That kind of takes my Podcast (Atkins All The Way Weekly Wrapup) out of the running, but I've said before, I don't need Wikipedia to market my stuff. As far as my help on the project, I don't really listen to too many Podcasts because I'm busy creating my own podcast and my real life stuff is going on without a commute anymore. :) But I may be able to help with other things administratively and grammar-wise. Testerer, There is a pretty large list of Podcasts in the category section but agreed that we need to categorize better as I'm sure there are some stranded articles out there. BrianZ(talk) 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you can judge it that way, because really, how many podcasts are written about in the paper or have been mentioned on a TV show? There's pleanty of podcasts out there that have hundreds, even thousands of listenrs and arn't written about. And what about new podcasts? Podcasts that are still growing but are notable? I think we may need a better system. Ganfon 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Notoriety is defined as "The quality or condition of being notorious; ill fame." or "Wide recognition for one's deeds." This is the problem with Podcasts. What I may think of as a great Podcast that tons of people listen to, may not be something you, and no one you know, ever heard of. The medium itself let's Jim from Nowhere, Iowa become a famous "radio" host. Jim will never be on Access Hollywood or the Today Show, but he's famous to alot of people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing my own agenda, but trying to trigger thoughts in someone else. Maybe we could use many of the Podcast Directory's ranking systems to make notoriety a changeable status. If we decide, as a group, which directories we'll use, that could be something that changes constantly. Otherwise, I can still see hundreds of arguments for deletion if we base it on our own opinions. It would be great to get a conscensus of popularity on iTunes. Considering its where 65% of all Podcast listeners download now. Thoughts? BrianZ(talk) 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I reconsidering, I'll side with the whole media citation idea. However, this means a lot of podcast articles are gonna have be tossed, and we're gonna have to do it. Ganfon 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're both right. Perhaps we should establish a set of basic criteria, like 5 things, you gotta have 3 etc.. I'm not saying that's perfect but to expand a bit. I'll just throw out some things I think would establish podcast notability. I'll list more than 5 because frankly, I'm brainstorming

  • Regular Media Mention
  • Valid RSS Feed
  • Winner of Podcast Award (by major, legitimate awards program/ website)
  • Consistantly (the meaning of that to be determined) Highly ranked on more than 1 Podcast Directory
  • Proof of X Fans. This is easy, can be done for those who use Feed Burner and have stats turned on- oh the actual number of fans to be determined
  • Extreme Notoriousness or Fame: IE: A Podcast Christmas Carol or a site like Podiobooks.com.
  • Podcast associated with a Major Media outlet or Website. IE: Diggnation, IE: NYT/PBS/MSNBC Podcast etc..
  • Podcast Hosted by a Famous Person IE: Adam Curry, John Edwards, or Daryl Hannah
  • A certain number of Digg's at Digg.com

These are just some I came up with quickly, surely there are more, if we agree on 3,5,6 whatever the number, then we can judge any (and every) Podcast in the same, fair way- and help to establish a wiki-compliant standard of notability. That there are only 84 Podcasts listed in the Category Page is crazy considering I personally subscribe to more than 84 shows. (hey- more time to listen with my own show on hiatus and a new baby at home) :)

As for new shows that are popular, I feel it is important in the notability discussion and process to figure out a way for newer shows that are article-worthy to be fairly included when fitting. There are obviously lots of new shows that deserve listings, some already are listed but I'd say more need to be added. That is the problem with the Catagories page, it would be a great admin job for someone. Here's a start- Leo Laporte's shows over at TWIT should probably be included into the podcast catagories(at least those with articles) and Wikiproject yes? I'm gonna list a bunch of shows I think could be fairly considered for new articles. But obviously not here. ;) Testerer 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Podcast Template for bottom of articles

Hello All,

I've created a small template to place on the bottom of all Podcast related articles. I'll go through some in the near future. Please give me your feedback as to how we can improve on it. I thought of some basics and just put them in. I'm definately open to suggestions and edits of the template. But I'll start adding the template to articles in the mean time. BrianZ(talk) 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, There are red linked genre categories, but I think the current genre categorization is weak so I added a few to create the categories, we can categorize the articles to meet the non-red link goal. BrianZ(talk) 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested Podcasts/Podcast articles

  • Jay and Jack
Have two successful podcasts. The podcasts in general maybe not, however the podcasters, i think, are.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they have 1 successful podcast, their other podcast, the Ramblecast is only available in video format, probably could be considered for a video podcast article, however the fact that their video podcast is only offered through iTMS and does not have a stand alone feed could be one reason they may not be that notable. If I have to have itunes to subscribe to your feed, I'll never listen. Sadly they've not used the ITPC protocol that's available, nor is their ramblecast available as an audio only podcast. Ultimately I'd definitely vote YES on including the Lost Podcast w/ Jay and Jack, but would reserve judgement on the Ramblecast, I would, when editing their main podcast article note the Ramblecast in that article.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, ramblecast is only avail bile in audio format. The Lost Podcast has had a few vidcasts, but never the ramblecast. My suggestion was not to make an article solely on one of the casts, but of the podcasting duo, with sections on both of the shows. Ganfon 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Off Topic with Matt and Dave
Pretty notable for just starting out in my opinion.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I'd never heard of it till a friend suggested it, I've listened, my opinion of the show means nothing as its all about notability. I would say that google search results for "off topic with matt and dave" do not yield their website on the 1st page. I'd probably vote against inclusion at this time. Though not a major requirement, I've never seen this podcast ranked highly on PCA, PP or Feedburner etc.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now they're still in the early stages. In their last episode they noted that they would soon be getting their main page set up (probably mattandave.com, judging by the show). The reason they have not been highly rated yet is because they are still very new, however their feedback and popularity is very high for such a new, independent show. So if they're not notable yet, I'd say they will be before too long. (Testerer-would that friend be me?) Ganfon 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Atkins All The Way Weekly Wrapup
Doesn't seem to meet the notability requierments, sorry BrianZ.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Israelisms Podcast
Again, doesn't seem to be that notable.Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This was the 1st podcast done from Americans inside of Israel, they are one of the 1st 250 podcasts to be listed on Podcast Pickle meaning they have been around for quite a while. This podcast is sponsored by a major Israeli online news site, as well as Charley Warady, one of the hosts, having founded the Tripod Network a viable Podcasting Network with many, many shows signed. Mr. Warady has been a guest representing both his show and network on countless Podcasts such as Podcast411 and Today in Podcasting. I think this show should have not been deleted but frankly was deleted during the Lebanon/Israeli war of 2006 and quite possibly could have taken the brunt of mixed political feelings. Again, the show is sponsored, the novell by one of the hosts has recently been named to the Amazon top 100 for its catagory. I think this article should be reinstated, and that it is clearly notable. This 1st podcast from Israel, the 1st podcast by American ex-pats living and raising a family in Israel.Testerer

  • Jawbone Radio
Deleted and protected. Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No idea what "Deleted and Protected" means or what the Strikethrough is all about, I can only say that Len and Nora, hosts of Jawbone radio (which I'm personally not a subscriber or fan of) have been particularly influential in the podcast communities of Podcast Picke and Podcast Alley. Len actually sold, through his website and podcast, a calender featuring the drawings many Podcasters done by himself. This podcast was in the 1st wave of podcasters and I think it should definitely be reconsidered. This podcast has been mentioned numerous times on the Daily Source Code going way, way back and the hosts probably know most of the 1st 10000 podcasters out there.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and Protected means exactly what it says. If you go to it's wiki page, you'll see it says the same thing. The statement means the article has been created several times, and deleted (via afd) each time, and now is protected from being recreated.Ganfon 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • TalkCrunch
Seems notable, and possibly worth pursuing, but I'd make sure it's a well written, sourced article before posting it.(that applies to all podcasts). On the surface it seems notable, but I didn't exactly go into a great deal of research on it. Ganfon 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Arrington is perhaps the most famous blogger aside from Perez Hilton. Techcrunch is a hugely read blog and TalkCrunch is it's audio counterpoint. I assume that like TechCruch, Talkcruch uses Feedburner for syndication and its subscriber base could be taken into consideration. All in all, an article should be created (imho) as well as cross ref's inserted into the main Arrington and Techcruch articles. BTW- the Arrington article has suffered many battles through its evolution. Talkcruch has had many, many famous techies including founders of Reddit, Digg and Om Malik for starters.Testerer 06:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Scoble Show

Robert Scoble's 1st attempt at video podcast through Podtech (which needs an article I think). Scoble is obviously a widely popular blogger and industry analyst. His show has featured many notable and article worthy guests.Testerer 06:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Josh in Japan

This show is in the Hall of Fame at Podcast Pickle. It was number 1 on those ranks for 3 months and thus was given such an accolade. Josh in Japan, though now, probably defunct was hugely popular. Adspace for the show was once auctioned off by Podtrac. Josh in Japan had to take legal action against a Japanese University who was using his shows for english lessons. Josh was also an member of the US NAVY and married a Japanese woman. His show was widely popular and consistantly ranked highly on many podcast directories. As a fan, I wouldn't write/edit the article but I think it should be considered.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This book series is widely popular, I think obviously worth considering for an article.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comedy4Cast

Winner of Podcast Peer Awards and consistantly high ranked on Podcast Pickle as well as other sites. The host is an active member in the New England Podcasters group as well as having been intereviewed extensively on other podcasts. I think it should be considered for an article.Testerer 06:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Podcast411

Podcast411 has helped more podcasters than perhaps any other site on the net. This non-profit site is run by a guy who produces the podcast for Presidential candidate, John Edwards. He's interviewed just about everyone notable in podcasting, spoken at basically every conference one can name, and is regularly breaking news to the rest of podcastland. IE: He reported on itunes implementing the ITPC protocol for RSS feeds and BOOM! everyone was using it, no more Phobos.apple.... If Podcast411 isn't notable, I don't know what is. Did I mention Rob co-wrote "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters" with Mur Lafferty?Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Geek Fu Action Grip

Mur Lafferty's main show, Mur is the co-author of "Tricks of the Podcasting Masters" as well as other books highly rated at Podiodbooks.com. She's been very influential for women in podcasting, has other podcasts to her credit , IE: "I should be writing" and, in my opinion, be seriously considered for inclusion.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Nate and Di Show

Probably one of the most well known shows during the 1st 2 years of podcasting. This show is now over, officially retired. However I feel it is notable enough to be worthy of an article. Nate and Di have won many awards as well as been sponsored by several companies. Offered a deal from Podshow, turned it down, twice. Nate and Di MC'd several Podcast Pickle Parties. They have stats on their website and should be considered for an article. Their show was also sponsored by HBO for some time. Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Signal

Consistantly top ranked, hugely popular, comparable to Mugglecast.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It also won two podcasting awards.
  • The Seanachai

Winnder of a Parsec Award.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Good Beer Show

Winner of 2 podcast Awards in the category food and drink. They actually won over several shows who hav existing articles in wikipedia, I think this is the biggest no brainer of the list (save for Podcast411).Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Bitterest Pill

Dan Klass is hugely popular, influential and sponsored. He's recieved as much Mainstream press as perhaps anyone but D&D.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Podtech

Podtech is a dynamic new company that features many skilled techies, including Robert Scoble. Definitely article worthy.Testerer 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Retrocrush

Apparently the podcast is mentioned in passing in the wikipedia article about the Retrocrush] website. Personally, I think that the information about the Retrocrush odcast contained in Retrocrush should be expanded upon a bit. This podcast was one of the top comedy podcasts in iTunes in Fall 2005 if I remember correctly. Elocina 17:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Open Source Sex
  • They Might Be Giants Podcast

Another article I requested and another case where the podcast could be elaborated upon in another article (in this case the They Might Be Giants article). Elocina 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Completed category Cleanup pages

U, V, and W pages in Category:Audio podcasts are complete. BrianZ(talk) 21:21, --> 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Articles

NOTEI think before we go nominating articles for deletion, we need to agree on a notablility process. That way when we contribute to the afd, we can include 'Does not meet notablility standars of WikiProject:Podcasting.' or something like that. That will show the project is running well, as well as show to the deletionists out there that we've made a notablility grading system for podcasts.Ganfon 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed, I think you nailed it. We must come up with a standard of notability. Definitely a priority. Is there a way to build a To-Do list that is prioritized? I also think that an agreed upon, community standard of notability for podcasts, based on a number of considerations, could help educate those who may be quick to delete or may not be familiar with what makes a Podcast truly notable.Testerer 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Purserj/Open Source On The Air - Thi sis obviously an original research page as it's a sub user page, what is the rule on this. He has an infobox on the page, and I'm not aware enough to know how notable the Podcast is.BrianZ(talk) 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The Distorted View Show - This is a notable Podcast but I cannot add an infobox to this article due to a spam filter message. I can edit other pages though. I looked for the offending link and saw nothing. Can someone else do this? BrianZ(talk) 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mercedes-Benz Mixed Tapes For one, this article seems pretty much like an advertisement, except for the questionable bit-torrent link at the bottom, it's listed as an audio podcast, but it doesn't seem to really fit the mold as a podcast as much as a corporate marketing tool. There's no host or anything, not sure it belongs in the Audio Podcast catagory, in fairness, there is an RSS feed, which I believe is one big consideration, check it out and see if anyone feels similiar- or maybe I'm just crazy. Notability Issues?Testerer 06:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weezy_and_the_Swish- This is one of those shows that could be insanely popular, that I've never heard of, but the article struck me a bit odd in that it lists direct links to the actual mp3 shows including show notes? Kinda wierd, the external links are a bit outta hand too.
The artile whiteroofradio.com also had external links to every archived show as well. I deleted them and noted the deletion on the talk page. Wikipedia should not be a repository for Podcasts. In essence, they are treating it as their archives. As a matter of fact, this article had many issues, including re-redirects and even a wikilink to a host with the same name as an olympic swimmer and it had a disambig tag leading back to the article (Not the hosts article, since he wasn't notable). If you want, check out what I did on the article and let me know what you think. BrianZ(talk) 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Noble Ape is listed as a podcast, when in fact it is just a website/science project that has a Podcast called Ape Reality. I feel that that this is misleading because Noble Ape isn't a podcast. Ape Reality may not meet notability. I find this a bit questionable.
  • List of The Ricky Gervais Show episodes- This probably (imho) should be merged with The Ricky Gervais Show] article. Also, should there be show notes for each episode? Not sure how I feel about having every show fully described with links for every podcast in wikipedia. Not saying it's wrong, any thoughts on anyone?
  • VGN_Radio- This article has major NPOV issues, external links that are way out of control, almost no references at all in what is a somewhat long article. Notable?
  • Podshow- NPOV, reads like an advertisement, this article has needed cleanup for a long time.
  • Control alt chicken, Ctrl+Alt+Chicken, Control+Alt+Chicken - First of all, the fact this one vodcast can be found in three places is a problem. I do think it's notable because a. it has a high number of Digg's and b. it's co-hosted by Alex Albrecht of DiggNation, but the notability of podcast is disputed in the second article I listed here. Also, some people think that this should be merged with the Revision 3 article, even though Revision 3 already has a section for this podcast. Also, most of the descriptions of this podcast only use the official slogan for the podcast and could read too much like an ad. Elocina 21:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Major Podcasting Related Article Clean Ups / Improvements

I think I want to at least considering adding a section in the discussion page for Major Issue related to how podcasting, individual podcasts, Wikipedia and this WikiProject can be utilized and improved upon. I thought of this related to the ongoing efforts to improve and monitor very basic articles like Podcast, I also think that an article like History_of_podcasting while informative, is to cluttered with shamelessly promotional external links, many to shows that have no wiki entry, also, there are unsubstantiated claims that have been easily inserted into what has become a really troubled page. The timeline is especially bothersome, statements with no reference or that make claims like, Early 2005 - The term "podmercial" was coined by John Iaisuilo, a radio broadcaster/podcaster in Las Vegas, who promptly trademarked it. and Also in July, the first People's Choice Podcast Awards were held during Podcast Expo. Awards were given in 20 categories. and The term "poditorial" was coined by author John Hedtke in July while writing half of "Podcasting Now: Audio Your Way!" and lastly Also in February 2005, Australians Cameron Reilly and Mick Stanic started a Commercial Podcast Network, The Podcast network. Reilly described his vision for the network to be the Time Warner of New media..

Maybe these things are true, maybe not, most link to some offsite company relate to podcasting or something but all in all, that timeline is a mess, Almost nothing is referenced and it seems too easy of a place for people to vandalize and abuse. I'm writing about it here because I am curious to know what other issues people consider. A few that I have are the numereous categories related to podcasting, how helpful are they etc. There is a catagory of podcasters and Audio Podcasts, ironically not all of the podcasters have Podcasts listed in any Podcast Category, and many of the hosts of the current articles are not listed in the Podcasters catagory. I guess I'm just saying that the meta of it all needs some cleanup, to avoid confusion.

I've also seen more than a couple podcasts articles that start out with this: ______ is a monthly podcast (Internet radio show).... Are we going to treat them the same, or should this be cleaned up. Internet Radio seems to be more streaming and thus perhaps should not be so boldly considered synonymous with Podcasting.Testerer 08:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen what you are talking about with Podcasts not being listed, but the Podcaster for that podcast has a page and so on. I just chalk that up to the reason we are in this project. As for the History of Podcasting. Yesterday, I simply arranged the article by dates so that it was easier to read. I did not do any reference work and basically saw that it needs a lot more work.BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Testerer: I think there is an issue with the terminology. Most people introduce their Podcasts as an Internet radio show because they feel it's easier for non-informed people to understand what it is that they are saying. If it is truly an Internet Radio show that is streamed, then it is not a Podcast. If the show uses a RSS Feed with an enclosure, then it should be treated as a Podcast. BrianZ(talk) 14:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree about how people will present a podcast, describing it as an internet radio show, more easy for people to understand. Perhaps we could/should include this notion in the wiki article for Internet radio? I also made a mistake in not including other, viable syndication formats such as ATOM in the past. Though I frankly don't use ATOM I think it would be fair to those who do use that format to purposefully include that standard as well. BTW- Thanks to whomever for catagorizing the podcasts that hadn't been catagorized properly, it's great to see that list empty. :)Testerer 06:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Podcasts from Larger Organizations

I'm just wondering what the policy is for larger entities like NPR or CBC that include podcasts as part of the products they provide. For example the CBC Radio 3 article is included in the podcasting category. This article is about CBC Radio 3 in general. While the article mentions the CBC Radio 3 podcast, it's mixed in with other information and doesn't have it's own section. Should the podcast have it's own wikipedia entry or should there be a section in the CBC Radio 3 article devoted to the CBC Radio 3 podcast? What about radio shows that are podcasted like those on NPR? Are those articles going to have their own sections devoted to the podcasts of those shows? Just wondering. Elocina 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarly BBC podcasts. For example, the high quality daily news programme Newsnight is podcast here. I would say that the podcasts as a whole are notable , but individual ones probably are not. Stephen B Streater 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I would say things like that don't necessarily deserve they're own article, however I can definitly see The BBC podcast being mentioned in another, related BBC article. Ganfon 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess my other question is then should the mention of the podcast be just a sentence long (something like "[Insert show name here] is also one of the most popular podcasts.") or does a podcast deserve it's own section within the article? Or does it depend on the topic itself?
My reasoning with the CBC Radio 3 is that the podcast would deserve it's own section in the CBC Radio 3 article, because I don't think the CBC Radio 3 podcast content is aired on the radio in Canada or on Sirius Satellite Radio. In that section there could also be info about the host and about the website (New Music Canada) from which the CBC Radio 3 podcast content is drawn. This might be a case unique to CBC Radio 3 though. Elocina 12:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting/Archive_1&oldid=1136048743"