Talk:Podcast/Archive 2

message: Yay! Cheers for Wikipedi.  This article was cited in a Supreme Court Amici Curiae brief. (The Grokster case) --Lotsofissues 13:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited in Supreme Court brief 

message: ...and ended up changing half the page. I think this better conveys what podcasting is and how it works.  I've seen this article referenced a number of times online, so I tried to write it for a person who doesn't know much about blogging or RSS or MP3s and such. --Screetchy cello 23:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
:I say that a podcaster is NOT one who posts downloadable MP3 files on the web. I say that a podcaster is someone who owns a device capable of receiving audio material downloads, and they are tired of commercially sponsored broadcast crap & looking for alternative listening material. They surf the web for new sources of this material.  Once found, they place a hook in these locations to allow future material to be reeled into their listening devices.  The casting activity has less relation to the process of posting files, and more relation to search, find, retreive process.  --RRLedford@gmail.com
::But that isn't how the term is used.  It's like saying that broadcasting is actually radio listening. Your describing the wrong end of the transaction.  "podcasting" is the side of the transaction that makes the MP3 files conveniently available, NOT the activity on the listeners side. --Clifdavis 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct - the previous poster has it backwards. Podcasting is creating files and making them available for downloading/RSS. --DavidWBrooks 12:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, so I did a couple of edits 

message: It's become the consensus among podcasters that the term "podcasting" applies only to audio content delivered automatically through the RSS protocol.  Other online audio delivered through standard web pages do not fit this term.  Just thought I'd put that up so everybody's clear on it.  --Adm58 00:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:The key part is automated download, and non-computer playback. RSS is a means to this end, but other ways are possible too. --Kevin Marks 07:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's the RSS 

message: Do we break off some of the (former) external links into a new List of Podcasts article? --Mydotnet 13:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
: Personally, I'd vote no, because that list would change so much that we'd always be behind. Plus, there are plenty of podcast directories on the Web. --DavidWBrooks 15:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Podcasts]] 

message: I have reverted deleted material (thus deleting the comment from the person who deleted it, alas!) since material should never be deleted from Talk pages unless it is offensive/illegal. I will archive part of this page, to shorten it. --DavidWBrooks 10:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material 

message: Please do not add links to individual podcasts, podcast software, podcast cons or to podcast directories (including Podcast Alley). Links should only be here if they help explain *what* podcasting is.  
:Why is this? What about listing the iPodder.org directory? --Anonymous
::Because linking to a site containing podcasts is NPOV- we could never get a fair representation, and even if we could, it is an open question whether that would be encyclopedic. See too up in the discussions: I also wonder why iPodder.org gets a link when it clearly has a corporation profiting behind it. --MasterMaq 07:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing Podcasting sites 

message: In the article podcasts are described as time-shifted.  This seems rather incorrect.
Unlike time-shifted material, podcasts cannot be listened to while the content is produced, which makes podcasts more akin to recordings then to time-shifted content.  
The RSS and auto-sync provide a new, unique way to publish audible digital content.  The combination of all three rightfully warrants a new name for what would typically be referred to as a recording.
Referring to podcasts as time-shifted seems like an attempt to increase the “coolness” factor of the term. --Anonymous
:No; entirely correct- podcasting is essentially, fundamentally, asynchronous- timeshifted in other words. The recipient chooses when to listen, not the sender.   And your point about production does not hold- just about everything on TV cannot be watched when being produced, and are, like podcasting, sent and with vcrs, received asynchronously/timeshifted, so why then you not cavil about the term's application to TV and VCR's and such, which originated the very term? --maru 14:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "..just about everything on TV cannot be watched when being produced..."  True, which is why TV shows aren't hardly ever referred to as "time-shifted," but rather "recorded."  In the old days when live TV's (more often live radio's) signal was purposefully thirty seconds or so behind the actual event (censor catch), it was referred to it as "delayed" broadcast, i.e., time-shifted.  The specific distinction between 'time-shifted' vs. 'recorded' does seem to be related to Can You Tap In During The Production (even with a lag), and in that respect, podcasts appear to be recorded rather than time-shifted.  Otherwise, it is a Webcast.  --Another anonymous :::00:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disgreement with time-shifted attribute 

message: Who or what is Winer?  The word seems to be used without introduction.
: Ooops: somebody (maybe me) got overly enthusiastic in past editing. It's fixed now. -  DavidWBrooks 16:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winer 

message: I removed this because it is inaccurate and it repeats information from another page.  The info is wrong because KFI doesn't distribute podcasts, Leo is permitted to do that by the station on his own time and expense.  If we insist on having this tangent niche info in the article, can we use some that is accurate?  Adm58 17:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
: Ah, excellent - an editor with knowledge that can be used to improve an article, instead of just throwing stuff out. I look forward to seeing it incorporated it in the story. Personally, while it's tangential I don't think it's irrelevant, at least not at this point. In six months or a year, when most radio stations automatically podcast programs, then it probably will be. - DavidWBrooks 18:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there seem to be two entries claiming to be "first" broadcast radio podcasts. I noticed when I added a third early starter (KOMO). I miss having some reference to the early NPR syndicated program podcasts, including "On the Media" (WNYC) and "Morning Stories" (WGBH), but I see from earlier discussion there's some reorganization of station links in process. Adoption by a national network like the BBC also seems significant. Limbaugh's reference should say why it's there; otherwise just another program. BobStepno 01:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses

message: I'm adding a NPOV banner as I think compared to older archives http://web.archive.org/web/20041130005814/ this article shows bias and factual innaccuracy - I'm not sure me just editing it would work; since my changes would get reverted. I'm an early podcaster and I don't recognise the facts and all the links disappearing, apart from the 2 one of which is a commercial entity - there seems to be a bias to radio stations and commercial entities. And Dave Winer getting edited out completely? What's with that?
iPodder is not the only directory site - you've got to mention PodCastAlley and the rest, or none. And don't link to Apple - they were nothing to do with the direction or invention of podcasting until very recently (iTunes 4.9). timbearcub
: Ah I can see Dave Winer's been added back in now - but will it stay?  I still stick by my general point about links - iPodder is not an independent site as it's run by Adam Curry, and not everyone uses it (?) - either add all the directories, or none...and I think some of the useful/historical links could come back? It seems very one-sided...I can see you've decided to take the links out for cleanness, but the current article gives the impression that podcasting is just Adam Curry and Apple?timbearcub
:: A very small point, timbearcub - if you sign with  ~~~~  (four tildes, not just three) it will put the date and time of your post, which makes it easier on Talk pages to keep track of who said what when. Currently, a person following the Talk link from the NPOV bug wouldn't know whether your above comment was made yesterday and is still relevant, or two months ago and has been superceded by events. 
::Having said that, I think the remove-the-ipodder-link contingent has made a good case. - DavidWBrooks 20:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope the mentions of Winer, Lydon, Hammersley and Curry stay put and that people don't waste time on "podfather" wars. Winer and Hammersley apparently have a long-standing unharmonious relationship, and I suspect partisans of one or the other have been deleting mention of whichever guy they think is a dork. And now Winer and Curry appear to have split over Curry's podcast-related commercial ventures. When it comes to podcasting, Winer deserves credit for adding the enclosure element to his flavor of RSS and Userland Radio, encouraging Curry's early experiments with it, then setting up a feed for Lydon, which helped inspire Curry's early Applescripts to get MP3s into his iPod. This is well documented in major newspaper and magazine articles, as well as the trail of blog posts and podcasts still online. Meanwhile Hammersley really did put the word "podcasting" in circulation. I think Winer and Curry talked about it in one of their early "Trade Secrets" podcasts last year. BobStepno 01:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks David - and the entry is looking a lot fairer now - noting the enmity and some of the issues around that; rather than just naming one person, it's now naming them all. Much better. The problem with innovations like this is that they are part incremental; part liguistics and marketing, and are collaborative - but the media likes a shorthand and just wants one person for their snappy sound bytes! timbearcub 15:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: Hey timbearcub, does your above note about the article being better now mean you'd agree to remove the NPOV tag? - DavidWBrooks 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV note 

message: Per a difficult VfD decision, the article "List of Podcasts" was deleted.  That decision may have implications for this page.  Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Podcasts for a record of the discussion.
*Agree with the decision taken by Rossami. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Podcasts 

message: The article says Podcasts are usually at no cost. Are there any chargeable Podcasts, yet? Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 09:05 (UTC)
:Unfortunately, it does seem like most of the major talk radio personalities (Rush Limbaugh, Phil Hendrie, Sean Hannity) are trying to charge for their podcasts. Here is an article on Rush Limbaugh's website right now explaining why he "has to" charge people, and "can't" be in iTunes. -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ June 30, 2005 12:41 (UTC)
:: What an idiot. But "trying to charge" !="charging"; in fact, he says charging isn't possible, so I'm going to remove that wording from the article. Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 13:34 (UTC)
::: Well, I don't really mind either way, but he's selling 400,000 hours a week, and I assume his show is a couple hours a day, 5 days a week. That's 40,000 people paying him USD$50 a year. I'd say a $200,000/yr profit qualifies as "charging". I think he meant that iTunes makes it impossible for him to charge, and since he's in it for the cash, he won't use iTunes. And even if he had claimed podcasts couldn't be sold, he also called free podcasters "ego-driven" and said 99% of it isn't worth anything. That's not very NPOV, and I don't think his opinions belong in Wikipedia articles. -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ July 1, 2005 04:58 (UTC)
What an immense loss. ;) Joe D (t) 30 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)
:Ha, I know, but Phil Hendrie is pretty funny. ; ) And Rush Limbaugh does claim to serve over 400,000 hours of content a week. So I guess someone is paying for that stuff, too. -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ June 30, 2005 12:54 (UTC)
::I don't call Rush Limbaugh "content". - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)
:::And that's as much not NPOV as Limbaugh's comments on free podcasters.  Michael Moore, Green Day, et al don't post free MP3s or videos of their stuff online either.  In fact last I checked Moore had also sold a companion book and "soundtrack" CD to his last film.  It's all for profit, no matter whose ideology you fall in step with.  I'm a Glenn Beck fan myself, and Limabugh's entry into the podcasting business is what ruined Beck's MP3s, that's why I mentioned him in the first place in the article. Mscudder 08:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: usually at no cost

message: Why are U.K., Australian and Canadian radio station podcasts worth mentioning on the main page while the rest of the world is consigned to List of radio stations with podcasts? A brief mention of the fall 2004 early-adopters with a link to the list page is more appropriate. (The same information on the main page is now on the list page, except for one broken link to a missing endnote on "/Nerd.") If the list page is becoming too much of a link farm, since the list of non-professional podcasts was removed, replace both with a "Podcasting Firsts" page, and let "me first" nationalists, anon or not, identify their local broadcasters' or independent podcasters' documented claims to "first podcast" there. BobStepno 4 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
:They're here because they shouldn't be split.  The list page isn't a list and either needs to be renamed or rewritten.  This is a page about podcasting so it needs to describe "podcasting" not "podcasting as a few techies see it".  Joe D (t) 4 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
::I disagree. There's no issue of "a few techies" here. This is a "history" section, but what started as a "radio podcast 'firsts'" list within it grew so much that someone moved it to a separate page. Unfortunately, its title doesn't reflect the dated, documented contents that were moved there. I'm not the Wikipedia expert you appear to be, JoeD -- can that other page be renamed 'Early Radio Podcasts' or "Radio Podcast 'Firsts'" so that the history section here doesn't resume acquiring "first British,"  "first North American," "first Spanish," "first Russian," ad infinitum? BobStepno 5 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
::P.S. If you're responsible for the British-Austrailian-Canadian radio history paragraph, please fix the footnote and link on "technology show /Nerd[8]." Note 8 isn't about it. BobStepno 5 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I was being a bit arsey about this article yesterday because looking back at the history of the page it seems several people have come along and decided that half the article should be deleted, for no reason.  The British-Australian-Canadian radio history paragraph needent be a British-Austrlia-Canadian paragraph, it should just deal with the main points of the history of podcasting with traditional broadcasters.  When I came to work on it this article had nothing at all about traditional broadcasters, and what I wrote was simply what I could find with an hour looking through the sources cited.  If there is already another article started on that (as the mistitled page seems to be), the material should not be deleted from the main page, rather there should be a summary section on the main page linking to the subarticle.
:::With regards to the "list of" article (which I'm not entirely sure is currently long enough to even warrant splitting into a new article rather than just a subsection, but I'm willing to leave split in anticipation of future expansion), the title should probabaly be something like "Podcasting and traditional broadcasters".  I'll leave it open to discussion here for a day or two before moving.  Joe D (t) 5 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)
:::P.S., the Wired article was my source for the CBC info.  Joe D (t) 5 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
::::Excellent, Joe D. I agree the "Podcasting and traditional broadcasters" title is more descriptive. I forgot to log in (again) when I added a couple of CBC links to that Wired ref, and clarified the U.S. early adopters a bit. I think KOMO is significant as a station podcasting frequent news updates, not just a single program. I avoided repeating details of the individual programs in L.A. and Boston, which are named on the "list" page. Bstepno 19:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio Station Firsts

message: What is the copyright position of users of podcasts and is payment made tor them? Lumos3 11:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright and payment 

message: Right before the "Adoption by traditional broadcasters" subsection, the "History" section could use a subsection/paragraph on the growth in popularity and variety of podcasts -- general descriptions and statistics, to avoid building another "directory." 
I haven't had time to check old newspaper stories or search scripting.com's archives for progressive estimates of the number of podcasts (or to find the first time someone snarkily compared it to "Wayne%27s_World"), but maybe someone does.  However, I did notice a series of Doc Searls posts documenting early spurts of growth in Google's awareness of the term, starting here: http://www.itgarage.com/node/462
"But now most of my radio listening is to what Adam Curry and others are starting to call podcasts. That last link [Google search for "podcasts"] currently brings up 24 results on Google. A year from now, it will pull up hundreds of thousands, or perhaps even millions." That was Sept. 28. Other Google hits and their dates in Doc's blog:
24 on Sept. 28
526 on Sept. 30
2,750 on Oct. 2
5,950 on Oct. 4
13,000 Oct 8
53,200 Oct. 13
109,000 Oct. 18
(By the way, the current number of hits on the word "podcasts" is approaching 11 million, so his "a year from now..." estimate was quite conservative.) On their own, those numbers don't really make a podcasting page entry, but I'm dumping them here in case they dovetail with stats someone else has on hand, or has time to dig up. Bstepno 15:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, after saying that, I found enough time to put together the start of a section called, at least for now, "Popularization," relying perhaps too heavily on those statistics and stories in two U.S. newspapers. Fortunately the stories in question have permalinks and are still available online. I'm sure the Guardian and BBC had early Podcasting stories, too, with plenty to add here. My intention wasn't to make this an archive of newspaper clips, but to start to fill in the gap between "Initial Development" and "Coping with Growth" without having only the traditional radio broadcasters in the middle. More hard stats from the podcast directories would help a lot, too. It's rough, but it's a start. Bstepno 01:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documenting spread of podcasting  

message: The Times didn't specifically cite this article, but made a half-joking suggestion that many people would turn to Wikipedia to find out what podcasting is.  Here's what I put on Wikipedia:Press coverage:  
:*Heffernan, Virginia.  "The Podcast as a New Podium". New York Times, July 22, 2005, p. E1. 
:*:"Admit it. You don't know what podcasts are. Your plan is to do that thing of half-reading tech articles and waiting in denial until it's scarily mandatory that you really understand it -for instance, you have to create your own podcast for some random reason in one hour - and then desperately turning to Wikipedia or a teenage relative for a last-minute explanation."
When I looked at this article, it seemed as if the last edit had exposed all the HTML tags, so I reverted.  Fortunately that turns out to be something weird at my end, so I'll go revert myself now. JamesMLane 22:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''New York Times'' mention

message: It seems to me that "blogcasting" refers only to podcasts that are associated with blogs.  As most podcasts are radio shows, not blogs, isn't it an oversimplification to say the two terms are synonymous? 204.0.197.190 16:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was listening to a [Microsoft] podcast a long time a go. The host was almost straining to say Blogcasting instead of Podcasting. I suspect some people aren't too keen  on associating themselves with the iPod. --Defragged 16:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogcasting? 

message: Can we get a search for "podcast" to redirect to "Podcasting"? Thanks
: It does. Or, perhaps, it does now. - DavidWBrooks 12:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "podcast" redirect