User:Testerer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] My thoughts on recent comments about the evolution of the article for podcasting
First, I'm glad you joined in the discussion. This is an evolving article, like many in wikipedia, take television for example. Let me remind everyone again of the Wikipedia_etiquette in that tones of discussion must be civil and all participants need to be polite and work toward agreement. I hope to help answer as many questions as I can, but I am just 1 of many parties who's been cooperatively working on this article for a long time. We have to understand that articles will and continue to change. This does not mean facts change, I think it is a reality in an ever evolving, ever improving project like wikipedia.
"What the @#!& happened to this article? == This article used to be about 3 times as long last week, and it contained alot of good information. "
If you look at the history and discussion you can see that the great polemics of the name "podcast/podcasting" has been moved to the History_of_podcasting article. To me, this makes sense because the actual etymology of the word itself really belongs in the history of podcasting due to its clouded and controversial nature. Older versions of this article contained such erroneous disinformation as Usually a podcast features one type of 'show', with new episodes released either sporadically or at planned intervals such as daily or weekly. In addition, there are podcast networks that feature multiple shows on the same feed. Wikipedia is encyclopedic, its not a place for "usually" class information. Such information is speculative. The remark on podcast networks featuring multiple shows is also completely irrelevant to podcasting itself. Podcast network itself doesn't deserve a wikipedia article. Another example of such disinformation in older versions is Consumer enters this feed URI into a software program called a podcatcher, a type of aggregator. I personally beg to differ, the program is not actually called a "podcatcher". I'll admit that some people call it a podcatcher, but the program itself isn't called a podcatcher. It's an aggregator or podcast reciever. If you want to create an article for podcatcher, go for it, be bold in doing it. But it's basically just slang for a podcast specific aggregator perhaps even news reader. There are lots of examples in this discussion page, just scan up a few subsections. Nearly all of the information is the same, it has only been reorganized and moved to make the entire article cleaner and more generally informative. A previous version contained gossip about Robert Scoble, that was under the name section, one of many good reasons to move such controversial irrelevance to the fuzzy history of podcasting.
The editors who have adopted this article as their own keep deleting relevant content, and they won't let any alternate or related articles exist(podcast, podcatcher, list of podcatchers, etc), for some reason they keep redirecting them to this article without including any of the information contained in them.
We are all editors and contributors. Very little content has been deleted and nothing was deleted without a open and fair discussion. It is all on record in this discussion page. Relevant content is not solely grounds for inclusion of an article, a list of "podcatchers" would not be appropriate for this article, wikipedia is not a "how to" for anything. There are plenty of resources to find lists of podcasts and aggregators. Others have pointed this out also. As for the redirects, I can't tell you, I'd try to make a new article, I'd have no problem with a seperate article for "podcatcher" etc..
This is a very important subject right now, if a few people want to micromanage this article, there's not much that others can do without getting into stupid editing wars, but allow alternate articles that can expand the topic in different directions.
Your right, it is a very important and financially sensitive subject right now. Wikipedia is not a place for politics, or financial interests to be served. People are split on this issue, there is neither a conensus nor a democratic opinion on current legal issues surrounding this term. This is all the more reason to be exceedingly accurate and neutral in this article. The current version does not serve anyone's financial interest and I think that is a very positive thing. I believe that Podcasting itself can and should be defined by its mechanics and its concept, that arguing about the name or which company to give credit to does not serve the users of wikipedia. The history article will be written as time goes on, no doubt, one of us will write about the outcome of Apple's current legal battle, but this particular article, about podcasting, should be only about podcasting. What it means, how it works etc.. Finally you mentioned expanded alternate articles, I think is exactly what we've all tried to do by moving the confusing and polemicized "content" and moving it to the History article. To assume the outcome of a wikipedia article debate a "stupid editing war" doesn't really treat the entire process fairly. I don't really appreciate your overall tone, I think it gets in the way of progress, but hope I've at least given you one perspective on the recent evolution of this article.
:I agree. This article is a mess in its current form. Wikipedia is not the place for anti-commercial crusaders to play around with re-writing history. For starters, what the hell is that stupid Firefox thing doing at the head of the article? Where did the Apple ipod logo go? It's 1000 times more relevant. --Gene_poole 02:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you that nobody is rewriting history. The word "pod" was not created by apple. Its meaning and history has been discussed at great lengths in this discussion page. Check it out before you might jump to conclusions. Secondly, I'm not sure why you would bash the most universal logo associated with podcasting. That you would call it stupid, is questionable also. The notes on that specific logo are This icon was introduced in Mozilla Firefox in order to indicate a web feed was present on a particular webpage that could be used in conjunction with the Live bookmarks function. Microsoft and Opera have adopted the icon in order to promote a defacto standard. This is very true, what started out as the little orange xml icon evolved into the icon in question. It's been adopted by Microsoft, Opera, and by Firefox to promote standards. I believe promoting such standards is very positive especially as someone who cares about the future of podcasting and its proliferation. Its funny that you would say the "Apple ipod logo", it wasn't an ipod logo at all, it was the icon for the podcasting section of Apple's itunes music store. It seems obvious to me that such an icon would not be in an encyclopedia if I looked up podcasting, but here's a better reason. That icon was created long after podcasting's creation and rapid jump in popularity. In other words, it came after podcasting, its just some logo Apple created, it doesn't really have anything to do with the greater meaning and concept of podcasting itself. Unlike the orange icon now used which is both visually universal and description of the term podcasting. In my opinion, the current icon is more associated with podcasting based on its meaning than the Apple itunes music store podcasting area icon.
Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Encyclopedias are inherently non commercial. Individual people, not a huge company developed podcasting. It would be better to have pictures of the inventors than have a commercial icon found in ad based software. Considering that the majority of podcast users browse the internet with either Firefox, IE, or Opera, I'd say the defacto standard icon currently present is more relevant than any other logo at this time. If, in the future, a more universal icon is adapted by the world, then I hope its included at that time.
It is very important that this discussion page be kept civil and free of any hostily or name calling. That will never result in a positive, cooperative solution. I myself am doing my personal best to be most helpful, open and honest about my perspective on this issue in a peaceful and "assume the best" manner. I really appreciate everyone doing the same.
This discussion must continue, we must work together positively to forge a superior article, I believe a great bit of the work has been done, however, further structure changes and organization are crucial, and staying out of arguments based on feelings outside of the definition of podcasting aren't going to accomplish a superior article. Thanks for everyone's help, I know its hard to do all the reading and discussions that took place in the past, but it must be done to understand why things evolve.
Thanks again Testerer 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
