Talk:Podcast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Podcast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
To-do list for Podcast: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
    A Wikipedian removed Podcast from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
    Removal date: October 13, 2006

    This article is part of the Podcasting WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. If you would like to participate, don't hesitate to join!
    WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
    Portal:Radio
    		 Radio Portal
    This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.

    This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia.
    Please participate by editing the article attached to this page and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. Visit the wikiproject page for more details.
    B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

    Talk:Podcasting/archive1> Talk:Podcasting/archive2> Talk:Podcasting/archive3>

    Contents

    [edit] Recent lawsuits pursued by Apple

    I think that the recenct lawsuits Apple has pursued against others using the term 'podcast' should be included in part of this article. The name chosen by many to replace 'podcast' can also be included -- 'netcast'. mojocojo2000 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    I disagree, as netcasts (netcasting) probably will become something that evolves from where podcasting stops, if Apple continues. If anything, the Netcast page will allow for news and updates on the situation. --24.20.181.127 00:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

    It's not clear that Apple is suing for "podcasting". They appear to be going after only companies that have a name that sounds too close to "iPod", which is in fact their right. --Randal L. Schwartz 03:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


    Yes, Apple is not going after the word 'podcast'. They have a trademark on the word "Pod". [1] With trademarks, you have to sue all opposition or lose the trademark. And don't think Apple likes it.
    Apple has applied, but has not been granted a trademark for the word "pod". See Trademark Office proceedings [2] Ccadenhead 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Please add the Podcasting Lingo

    Here is the link to the podcasting lingo: http://www.lingospace.com/podcast/

    [edit] Would this be a good external link?

    Hi, I wanted to ask about an external link before posting it in the article. Okay To Play contains comparison charts for podcasters to compare the various hosting services, advertising companies, podsafe music resources, audio hardware, and web tools available to podcasters. I know you guys worry about irrelevant and spammy links, so I wanted to run it by you first. Would it be okay to add? Abv 12:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] History has ITUNES incorrectly referenced

    "...and Kevin Marks demonstrated a script to download RSS enclosures and pass them to iTunes for transfer to an iPod. Curry and Marks discussed collaborating. After the conference, Curry offered his blog readers an RSStoiPod script that moved mp3 files from Userland Radio to iTunes, and encouraged other developers to build on the idea."

    This was pre-iTunes

    No it wasn't. It was before iTunes had podcatching built-in, but that's the point.

    [edit] Mechanics section is inaccurate

    Editing this now - I must make a point though regarding streaming and podcasting. They can be compared on two levels. Firstly, streaming can be of a live event, significantly it can be of a live event. Podcasting can't be streamed live. Streaming technology can support recorded shows too of course. However, 'podcasting' may be a streaming url, nothing dictates that a podcast has to be an offline transfer.

    Offline transfers allow you to take content on the road currently, but there is no reason not to class syndicated media as 'podcasting' if it is streaming. There are more points, but please discuss. --Author

    You could expand the definition of Podcasting to refer to Streaming, but that would render it meaningless. This sounds a bit POV to me; the consensus definition of Podcasting is automated media downloads for offline (in the sense of not requiring a live net connection) playback. Kevin Marks 19:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] OK, we need one list of lists of podcasts

    Quite frankly, this article is more useful with at least one link to a list of podcasts. I have done even better. I have, after some struggle with Google, found a list of lists of podcasts. It took me quite some struggle on Google to find places like Odeo and what not; this article has far more value to someone who didn't know anything about podcasts up until about a week ago by having precisely one link to a list of lists. I understand the List of Podcasts article was deleted and I understand the concern about podcasters abusing Wiki to promote their own podcast, but I don't think decreasing the value of this article is the answer. Samboy 05:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

    What if we don't have a static list of PodCasts? Let's just have a list that constantly updates itself and only show the top 10 downloaded podcasts? Zhanster 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia isn't Yahoo - setting up constantly-changing lists is asking for a bloated and yet out-of-date article (as the excitement fades, editors will move on to other articles and the dead links will accumulate). Eighty percent of the editing on this article over the last six months has been adding, deleting and twiddling with exterior links. That's not what wikipedia is all about; we're not a directory or link farm. Personally, I'd dump all the links to podcasts or lists or podcasts, leaving only explainers. - DavidWBrooks 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    I think one reasonable compromise is to have only one or two links and have a As of October 28, 2005 note before the list of links. The links save one who doesn't know about podcasts from having to play the Google game, while not being too numerous to not be maintainable. In fact, I will do this; I think it is a reasonable compromise between having no links and having a zillion links. Samboy 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    They've started returning already! - DavidWBrooks 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's a good idea, just have one or two links as a excample. We can't have not links because then the readers can't find a proper excample. Zhanster 09:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    The trouble is that 20 different people will want 20 different sets of "one or two links", so we'll be swamped. That's what keeps happening. - DavidWBrooks 12:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    The way I'm getting around this subjectivity is to score links based on the Google link:www.postcastsitename.foo score; I put this score next to the link and the date for the score. Sites with a link score of zero are deleted on the spot (I deleted two such sites). I also delete sites that sell commercial software. My heuristic is a little fuzzy, but I'm far less inclined to delete a link that is itself a list of podcast indexes a.k.a. http://www.podcast411.com/page2.html.
    Basically, what I'm trying to remove is links being added by the spammers promoting their own Podcast search engine or podcast writing software (I deleted that link also). I think the Google link: score is a good Heuristic, as is adding lots of bonus points for adding links to other podcasting search engines, the way podcast411 does (the bonus only counts if the link here on Wiki directly links to the list in question). Wiki's job is to point to information already decided to be notable, not try and make non-notable information notable (this is also why I would like to see 99% of the micronation article thrown out) Samboy 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    Yep, great idea guys. Zhanster 00:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    Not that I disagree, but how does information become notable in the first place? SR - RE 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

    One list? ROFL....how many directories are out there now? about 2 gazillion?

    If I could step in- i know this link very very well- it is maintqained almost daily by rob walch of podcast 411- who is one of your few podcast links he is dedicated to maintaining the highest quality of his work and detail and would help make the learning and search curve much easier for any one trying to find directories of podcasts i recommend that if we even consider posting a link of directories, that this be the one thank you Chenza 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    I think we should at least list a few notable Podcasts, such as Ricky Gervais' which is supposedly breaking records for listeners. -DM

    [edit] OK, how is this for removing links

    I have changed my criteria for adding a link here. I don't think we should allow links to a Podcast search engine, because there seem to be about two zillion of those and we'll quickly find ourselves fighting link rot. What I think we should allow is a link to a list of podcast search engines. A link to a podcast search site can very well be added here for commercial gain; a list of podcast search sites is a list that helps build up the podcast community. If we get too many links to lists of podcast search sites, we can use the Google link:www.listoflistofpodcasts.foo score to weed out the non-notable ones. Do other users here feel this is a reasonable compromise between the need to have at least one link, but have as few links as possible? Samboy 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    As for Podcast players, in order to stop people from listing their commercial player here, I have made the list of players a list of open source players. People willing to give something away to the community are helping build up the community; others who have a more commercial interest, IMHO, should not have their player listed here. Again, it's to avoid linkrot and making this page have too many links to be useful to a Podcast newbie. Samboy 17:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] podbaby.net spammer

    Just a heads up that a spammer has twice added a link to their podbaby.net website from here. I will remove this site whenever I see it here; it is not a list of podcasts and looks to be one of those sites where you have to pay for them to spam your podcast to search engines. Samboy 18:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    All links should definately have rel="nofollow" - is this done by wikipedia for all links be default? Author

    [edit] A webPod a virtual iPod

    To listen to podcasts you can use a webPod. It's a virtual iPod, all is online no software to download, the list of podcasts is included by Webservice. The player is standalone. And if you want the player in your website, only add some lines of HTML code, it's free! Do you think I can add a link in this page and where? (because it's a new way to enjoy podcasting). http://www.mirpod.com

    [edit] pre-podcast

    To the anonymous IP who put in a long discussion about pre-podcast Websites of sound files and the like, which I removed, remember that it takes an automatic download, RSS-like, feature to make a podcast. Online sound and radio shows and music isn't the same thing. - DavidWBrooks 22:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

    Sadly this is technically not accurate. podcasting doesn't indicate automatic downloads and if it is argued that it does then fine, the term is academic. The technology of syndication requires no modifications to incorporate binary data. The technology of syndication, of which it can be argued that podcasting is merely a pseudonym for, allows for applications that may choose to automatically download content from subscribed url's. You bring up a good point, but one that highlights the need to clearly reduce the complexity of this article as it makes the whole issue seem than it is. --Author

    [edit] Pseudo-archived (a.k.a. deleted)

    Linked at top of page. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

    Pointcast was an automatic download of text, audio and video in the earlier days of the net, as were some of the push technologies like backweb, you'd push and then subscribe to a audio or in limited cases - video channel. It was mostly audio - as bandwidth times restricted audio downloads. The difference may be that these were proprietary sources and you could only get pointcast content on pointcast. They aggregated the content sources. This was done to a screen saver or through a piece of software that was termed "push" in those days or "webcasting". Webcasting can/has been defined as live audio or video via the net and other devices as well as live and download in a number of books by Wiley, N.A.B. and others. Now - the streaming media industry is saying that downloads have always been a part of streaming, and on-demand video whether download or streamed is a part of streaming. The actual technical movement of a file digitally is streaming, using different formats whether mp2, mp3 (not really technically mp3), mp4, mp21. Streaming is a more technical term explaining the distribution of audio and video in a digital format.

    There were early download sites that pushed audio and had subscriptions. They didn't last, as it was a cost feature and they couldn't support the technology costs. I believe one was TSK if I remember correctly. I don't remember pseudo having a subscription engine, but remember a couple of sites trying to set up audio push/downloads to listeners/consumers. Just an FYI. I didn't see what was deleted in regard to Pseudo. I assume you were talking about pseudo.com.

    The key factor for podcasts via RSS (in my opinion) is that it's not controlled by one content distributor. You have the ability to access content from a number of sources, not just say - RealNetworks, the former pointcast, your cable company, your TV station's content etc. You can access content created by individuals as well as by broadcasters and other corporations.

    I'm also wondering why the information on Harry Fox - necessary to license music downloads was removed off the legal issues. If you're not using podsafe music - you need to license the music from Harry Fox or another firm, or the original source of the music. That's the law in the US. In other countries - you have to go through their licensing agencies for replay of the song via download, a clip, version, background music, and the like. When broadcasters licensed the music for some of their intros., etc., they may have only licensed it for on-air use and not Internet streaming or download use.

    Some podcasters also stream as well as provide downloads, for those who don't have portable devices. The majority don't own portable devices yet, but can experience RSS now. So streaming is a valuable component if you want to gain more and more people as a podcaster.

    Podcasters who stream as well as download have to concern themselves with BMI, ASCAP, Sesac licenses in the US, and other licensing bodies in other countries. Despite fast access and the ability to download files in the US, Japan, Korea and other advanced Internet access countries, there are countless that would like to listen to files, and might not be able to download to a device due to shared computers, accessing by Internet Cafe and the like in other countries and even in developed countries.

    A streaming file of a few seconds is also an effective way to preview a podcast without the wait, especially on slower speed downloads. If you say a podcast is only a download through a reader - and not a link to a streaming file on a reader or through RSS syndication, what is streaming called if the link is being distributed through RSS, or you're accessing a stream through a P2P network. It's no longer just a stream, but a syndicated stream?

    What's the term du jour for video blogging, for sites like rocketboom.com.

    I hope these issues are okay for discussion here. I hate to see statements that the legal issues for podcasting are not yet known. Many - if not all of the legal issues if you're using copyrighted material are law today, whether one likes it or not. If you're interested in the legal issues related to podcasting - review the laws for downloading mp3 files. They are very very much alike. There may be additional SAG, AFTRA and other laws for talent if you have subscribers from many territiories or locations. That's if you work with talent that are in a union.

    Cheers - pm vox

    [edit] Streaming comparison

    I think the comparison of streaming media to podcasting is off the mark. While streaming is used for live events, it is also used for Video-On-Demand. Podcasts are saved to one's computer or player, streamed files are not. (Of course I create VOD files that are made available for download via web pages.) The main difference is the delivery method. Clients need to pull a stream off the web rather than waiting for the RSS push. File formats are also different as most streams are delivered as WinMedia, Real or QuickTime. Mpeg formats (mpeg4 in particular) are becoming more popular for video streams, but the big three still rule. BethFell 18:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Revisionist histories

    For some reason a person at 82.108.78.107 keeps removing vital material that explains some of the history of the development of podcasting. This has happened in the past, and I just noted it. I reverted the section that the person changed to its original composition. --Buridan

    This entry is too long and has too much political weight. This needs to be a simple, understandable discussion of podcasting, which is a trendy term that confuses people who may already be familiar with certain technologies. I see little value in linking to specific podcasting resources, perhaps link only to google or places where podcasts of the readers choice can be found easily. This simple rule will remove the worry over which links get the wikipedia blessing or not. I am strongly against artificially inflating the importance of this article or being overly historic and academic about a term that merely described pre-existing technology. --Author
    Yeah okay this story got digged. a quick link, if you come from there is

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.108.78.107 and the http://www.ripe.net/perl/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=82.108.78.107&do_search=Search

    Now either Adam did it for ego or else is not part of wikipedia. those where simple modifications most of them about the Dave Winer's case, had he made the script or not. Dave proved he did it, Adam explained he didn't know. Are we done now?
    Apparently not. this News story tipped me off, and 82.108.78.107 made another edit a couple of days ago. Not being an expert on podcasting history, I'm not sure how things should read... Keep an eye out for 82.108.*.* since that whole network space is assigned to Adam Curry.[3] -- ke4roh 04:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    I believe that the history of this should be cut to a minimum as writing so much about this is muddying the whole issue and turning a simple article into one that is self fueling. --Author
    Follow-up from Curry: He says he was having trouble figuring out the editing system (and my guess is he had difficulty because the article is so dynamic) and he said the history had become somewhat convoluted here. [4] -- ke4roh 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    If anybody's confused about this conversation, note that this thread was started after the one right below here ("pilot error"), even though they are both about the same topic, and covering the same material. -DavidWBrooks 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Pilot Error

    According to Adam Curry's blog, the removal of Kevin Mark's contribution was entirly accidental, as it was to be rewritten. The conspiracy theorists can go home now. Play 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    interesting.... this is the second time though, doing it once, that's an error... doing it twice that looks a bit less erroneous. Also, in both cases it doesn't appear as if he returned to do the rewriting. but i guess... we should assume good intensions knowing that he has never done anything to mislead in the past.... --Buridan 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Favorite part of his entry: After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out the interface of the editing system I became exasperated and gave up. - DavidWBrooks 11:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Obviously we don't have a mindreader, but every one of the four so-called editing errors was in Adam's favor. Would you edit someone you knew out of Wikipedia by mistake and do nothing to correct it? - Rcade 13:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    There's an old saying: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I'm happy enough that Curry screwed the pooch w.r.t. Wikipedia, by editing the article at all, in violation of the "no autobiographical edits" policy - see WP:AUTO. I'm still a Daily Source Code listener, and mistakes are a regular part of Curry's life and business... Stereoroid
    To be fair, who doesn't make regular mistakes? I know I do. Dan Lovejoy 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    I would have to be considered a biased source, because he's attacking my integrity on his blog in response to all of this, but Curry has now admitted on the weblog of one of the people he deleted from the podcasting entry that it was intentional [5]. As he commented, "When editing the 'history' I didn't feel this was a significant contribution in the chronology as it did not influence me." Rcade 16:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] History Section Rewrite

    I'm proposing a rewrite of the history section, as detailed in this weblog post. I would appreciate feedback before doing so, in order to hopefully head off another edit war. Note that I have no conflict of interest in regards to podcasting. - Shelleyp 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

    Shelley, I think your proposed refactoring is fair and reflects the contribution of the core key players. I hope you'll go ahead with it and you get past the later entry on your weblog regarding technology writing - Marius (who is simply an interested bystander).

    I made the change. I also suggest that the audioblogging people setup a separate topic page for this. Audioblogging is not synonymous with podcasting.Shelleyp 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    I wikified most of that section and moved the majority of the links down to the notes. --TNLNYC 16:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcast receiver topic

    Isnt it the same as a podcatcher or an aggregator (as mentioned inthe article above?) if it is the same, then they both references should have the same title!

    [edit] iPodder script / ipodder.org Dates

    Says the entry: "A month later, in October of 2003 at the first Bloggercon weblogger conference held at Harvard, Harold Gilchrist and Kevin Marks demonstrated a script to download RSS enclosures and pass them to iTunes for transfer to an iPod[8]. Following the conference, Curry offered his blog readers a RSStoiPod script that would do the same. He assigned an open source license to the script (which he called 'iPodder'), and published it online at ipodder.org; encouraging other developers to build on the idea."

    This makes it sound like Adam Curry released his iPodder script on ipodder.org in 2003, but note that ipodder.org did not exist until September 2004:

    Domain Name:IPODDER.ORG Created On:04-Sep-2004 22:58:44 UTC


    [edit] Question: History

    The history section, even after the rewrite, is getting complicated. Should we have a subsection on it covering the technical development (ie. development of the underlying format), then the development of clients.

    Also, should we consider having the precursor part move up before initial development and then have the initial development section called early development? --TNLNYC 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

    I agree with both your suggestions. I think a separate section listing out tool development, as both history and tool chest, would be good and would help people who just want to know what tech is available to use, when was it created, and who created it. And it makes sense to move the precursor up, though part of me thinks we could actually delete that section.Shelleyp 15:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

    The history section has once again become a collection of contributions made by Dave Winer, most likely because Dave is working the ref so hard over on his blog. No matter how good a state this section reaches, it ends up being pulled back into this. Shelley's rewrite and mine have long since been lost. We could revert back to some half-informative state, but this would be a waste of time. Dave is of course a controversial guy in a Godwin way. Writing about something that involves him requires the same kind of controls that articles about Microsoft need. How is that done on wikipedia? User:Lucas_gonze 20 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] 'casting' terminology

    The creation of *-casting words to describe podcasting-like distribution of every type of digital file is getting ridiculous. (It's like the way "-gate" gets added to any verb and noun to describe any scandal in Washington, D.C.) I suspect most are used by virtually nobody except the person who thought them up, and who is probably trying to grab the domain name. I urge editors who are more attuned to the field than I be be bold and remove any terminology that is too peripheral. - DavidWBrooks 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] "Name" section plagiarism?

    Okay, what's going on here? I've seen the section under "Name" here for at least several weeks, and today I come across this Forbes article - who is ripping who off? Wikipedia? Forbes? New Oxford? nae'blis (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

    Check the history of this page - the "portmanteau" usage was the topic of a minor edit war earlier this year. That terminology dates back many, many months on this site. - DavidWBrooks 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    I checked the history of this passage on my weblog this afternoon: Podcasting: Accept No Imitations
    Wikipedia got there somewhen around the 17th July (possibly earlier, that paragraph was getting a lot of fiddling at the time), not November. Joe D (t) 02:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    I quoted the November version because Chris Noon lifted it on Forbes.Com. The words portmanteau and misnomer have bounced in and out of Wikipedia since July, but no one has done anything to them from November through Noon's piece. Rcade 12:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    On a slightly different note, this section has the ambiguous phrase "no broadcasting is required". Can we clarify this? According to the broadcasting article (linked in the paragraph above the one in question), media distributed over the internet fits the definition of broadcasting. So why is the broadcast bit a misnomer? Joe D (t) 02:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Lost reference

    This was in the notes section, and was probably for something in the technical initial development section. The reference to it has gone though, so I've moved it to here incase anybody can spot a section of text that's supposed to refer to it:

    1. ^  Curry, Adam, 27 October 2000. The Bandwidth Issue

    Joe D (t) 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

    While cleaning up the references to use the new citation system, which will hopefully bring an end to these issues, I came accross:

    1. ^  Technology writer Doc Searls had proposed "Personal Option Digital" in September, 2004. The "Personal On-Demand" interpretation (with that capitalization) had been in international circulation as early as October 2004. In July 2005, Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble used that same version when countering reports that his company was pushing the word "blogcasting" to avoid mentioning an Apple product. Scoble, Robert, 2005. "Blogger gives incorrect data about podcasting at Microsoft."

    ...which isn't referenced at all. Joe D (t) 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    Good catch, Joe D. I added an early version of that ref last year; it should be on the phrase "some writers have suggested alternative names" in what is now the "Names" section. Someone had added a digression about "backronyms" that seemed off-topic and may have been deleted, something like the "portmanteau" wars. Sorry, I don't have time to restore the ref or check out this new citation system. (Or, for that matter, to dig up my password and login) Bob. OK, temptation was too great... I went in and repaired both sets of references. The Curry one was to his earlier blog, on a no-longer-in-service server. SameBob

    [edit] Re: link to podcast

    The University of Cambridge podcasts Anatomy lectures. Anatomy Podcasts

    The podcast is produced by a lecturer at Cambridge, but the website makes no indication that this is an officially endorsed University of Cambridge product. This link also smacks of spamming. --Kwekubo 01:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Why is this link being removed from the external links?

    The following link adds value to the question "what is a podcast". Wikicrusader has removed it. What is wrong with this link? What is a podcast?

    It looks like a commercial website to me. Wikicrusader 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

    Could you please expound? There is nothing for sale on that page. Have you looked at the quality of the content freely offered there? --69.86.70.246 22:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, go ahead and re-add the link Wikicrusader 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    We have external links to at least five tutorials, all very similar to this. Tutorials were useful a year or even six months ago, but there are hundreds of them on the Web now. Nobody needs help finding them, and if we linked to every one that wanted wikipedia traffic, we'd be swamped ... which this page almost is! I'd suggest removing them all.- DavidWBrooks 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yes it is a tutorial "site", but it is a PAGE with an excellent definition of a podcast that I'm linking to. However, I do think this is one of the most complete and non-tech friendly tutorials available. Maybe we need to decide on some criteria. --69.86.70.246 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    Nothing against that page/site - it's just that this article has a real problem with too many external links. (Almost as much as the problem it has putting together a history that doesn't offend somebody!)- DavidWBrooks 23:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    Understood. --69.86.70.246 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

    And now for something completely different. I have removed this link:

    • Lusocast Directory of Portuguese spoken language(Portugal, Brazil, etc) podcasts

    On the grounds that it probably belongs more in http://pt.wikipedia.org. Joe D (t) 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] I've just gotten rid of a lot of link spam

    I've just gotten rid of a lot of link spam from this page. This page really needs to be semi-protected. Samboy 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    Thanks very much for cleaning up the external links. It's much appreciated. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    I replaced the link to "What is a Podcast?". This has been discussed before and it was deemed a good resource. Nothing is being sold on the page. As it states in the comments above the External Links, "External links should explain Podcasting in more depth or from a different angle than Wikipedia can...". This site fits that criteria as it gives a very concise and non-technical definition of podcasting. --69.22.247.14 06:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to talk on this talk page and share your point of view with us. I always welcome new users and the contributions they can make which will improve the Wikipedia.
    I encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and make contributions to the Wikipedia. It is a process that takes less than five minutes, and you do not even need an email address to sign up (we encourage users to supply an email addres so users can privately communicate with them, and so that passwords can be emailed to users that forget them. Wikipedia, I assume you, will never use your email addres to send you spam). However, as you have discovered, you are perfectly free to make edits from your IP.
    My concern about the link to http://www.how-to-podcast-tutorial.com/what-is-a-podcast.htm is that this article appears to be a promotion for an ezine instead of a technical article to help people set up podcasts. In particular, the page says "sign up for my free podcasting ezine to get exclusive tips for creating, publishing and promoting your podcast". This appears to be a link that is "added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates", which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Please look at Wikipedia:External_links.
    This in mind, I have removed the link. I encourage you to continue making contributions to the Wikipedia and encourage you to add links to the podcasting page which both follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links and follow the consensus on this talk page (Namely: 1. Don't link to non-GPL podcasting software. It is not sufficient to call the software "GPL"; we need to verify that the source code can be downloaded. 2. Don't link to a podcast search engine, but feel free to link to a list of podcast search engines) Again, thank you for your contributions and discussing the issues here. Samboy 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    I am replacing the What is a Podcast link AGAIN on these grounds:
    1. It adds to the definition of podcasting.
    2. The quality of information should be more heavily considered than nitpicking at minutia of "what is commercial". There is nothing for sale on this site. I can pick at other links that have been submitted (and that you have left on the page) on similar grounds. MyPods.net has Google Adsense at the bottom. But mainly it offers valuable info.
    3. Yes this page has a subscription, but so do three of the other links. They have podcasts to subscribe to (e.g. Podcast411 and AMP)
    5. This has been discussed before and others agreed to leave the link before you unilaterally removed it.
    Thanks. --69.86.70.246 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you again for your input. The reason why we are very fussy about links on this page is because so many people want to put their link here. In the case of Podcast411.com, the reason we have this link is because Podcast411 links to a number of sites, including a large number of Podcast411's competitors. As for the AMP link, this, again is a non-commercial interest which helps promote musicians more interested in getting their art out there than in making money. Now, obviously, you are welcome to your opinion. I note that you have reverted my revert; since I follow the Wikipedia:One-revert rule, I will not revert your edit. I can not speak for other editors. Samboy 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Samboy, you said in a previous thread, "people willing to give something away to the community are helping build up the community". Have you looked at the site in question? There is a lot of information (including video, concise definitions and how to) that could EASILY be charged for but are not. Even when you sign up for the email list, you just receive more information (a whole ebook) for FREE. This is why I make myself a champion of this link.
    You mentioned that Podcast411 is deserving of inclusion as it links to other valuable resources. So does the site in question. You also state that Podcast411 is justified because it links to "competitors". I'm not sure how Podcast411 can link to competitors and be labeled non-commercial at the same time. That said, I have much respect for Podcast411.
    Relating your opinion on AMP, I'm not sure how one can say that the intentions of the musicians who receive promotion and play thanks to AMP all have non-commercial intentions and are purely 'for the art'. But, to go with that logic...the site in question is helping podcasters get their "art" out there.
    The point of all this is to say that I find the discusion of commercial or not (when it comes to the link in question) to be arbitrary. In the end, I prefer to base my decision on the merit of the information.
    When you consider the value of the information FREELY given on the site containing "What is a Podcast" and all the help that readers of this Wikipedia article will receive from the site, it is clear to me that it is deserving of inclusion. --69.86.70.246 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    Bottom line: I don't think you would be advocating this link if it wasn't a link to your own web page. Samboy 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    I do not believe that the site in question offers resources that are not already offered on this page and its external links. The link seems to be added to promote a site, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --BG 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    When I first looked at the site it looked like a very suspicious commercial venture. I risked a throw-away email address on registering, and I have to say, it seems to be legit. The "free ebook" is a 38-page creative commons-licensed PDF with good information in it. There's not a scam anywhere that I can see. Given how much the site looks like a spam/get rich quick scheme I have to admit I'm suprised. Anyway, I'd suggest that despite appearances this is actually a pretty good resource. If the site didn't require registration before you could read their "good stuff" I would add the link back myself. Since it does, I won't :) Thparkth 02:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Wikibook?

    Anybody up for writing a tutorial / manual at Wikibooks? Would end the problem of having tutorials in the external links. Joe D (t) 23:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

    I went ahead and started one: Wikibooks:Podcasting. So far I've written about RSS feeds and outlined possibilities for expansion. Joe D (t) 01:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcast directory

    I think that *one* and only one link to a podcast directory is okay and will help in dealing with people asking "why can't I list my site/podcast". A quick google search found http://podcasts.yahoo.com/ that I think would best serve the purpose. Interestingly, this Wikipedia article is the #1 google result for "podcasts", though the Yahoo site comes up in the first ten google results. I think the other top ten-listed sites (listed below) are less suitable as a general podcast directory.

    I think it's worth discussing here on the talk page and reaching consensus on which podcast directory, if any, to include. I see that you do include http://www.podcast411.com, and maybe that does serve the purpose better. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    Good luck - a quick search of the history of this Talk page finds discussion at least as far back as March 2004 about which podcasts to link to. Personally, I think podcasts are so easily found now, on so many different search engines, lists, etc., that we don't need any such link in this article. But I don't think that opinion is in the majority. - DavidWBrooks 02:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'd second it. Joe D (t) 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Okay. I defer to whatever way you think best deals with linkspam and appreciate your comments. I'm working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to help combat linkspam and this article seems to attract a lot of linkspam, and I'm willing to help keep watch on it and find ways to help minimize linkspam. I like how you have commented out why podcast411.com is included and what should and shouldn't be linked, when one goes to edit the external links section of podcasting. Another approach I've seen on other articles is linking to http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Podcasts/. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've used a DMOZ link as an excuse to delete all the contentless local business directory sites from British county and town articles several times, that could do the trick here... Joe D (t) 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. I only somewhat recently added this article to my watchlist, so for now I'll just keep watch on it and see how the linkspam goes. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] POV Criticisms section

    The following was added by Xerves (talk • contribs), in its present wording it's not acceptable, but somebody may wish to rewrite it with sources so I'll keep it here. Joe D (t) 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

    ==Criticisms==
    Podcasts originally started off as an indi adventure, but they are slowly being replaced by commerical podcasts that are affiliated with major network tv stations, commerical websites, and other "professional" entities. It is slowly becoming harder and harder for the indi podcasts to be noticed because all the major distributors (ex: Itunes) are showcasing only the commerical podcasts due to their rating structure.
    • I reworded it. If you find something wrong could you please be more concise as to the problem so I can include it. It is an ongoing change in the scope of podcasting and is worth noting. Xerves 06:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Surely though there is an element of truth in that statement. The Ricky Gervais podcast went for-profit after twelve popular episodes. Make no mistake, this could be a future trend. SteelyDave 12:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Too long?

    Any chance of shortening the article and splitting some stuff off?--BozMotalk 15:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

    The History section needs its own article. If there are no objections, I'll split it off, unless someone beats me to it. --ozzmosis 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    It's done... --ozzmosis 10:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Do we need 50 links to Adam Curry sites?

    Do we really need this many links to sites run by Adam Curry. I know he had a lot to do with the popularity of podcasts but really...

    [edit] Why not have a set of links to podcast directories?

    People use Wikipedia for a lot more than merely definitions. They are looking for resources as well. Links to sites are constantly taken down from this article and give the users not only a better understanding of podcasting, but also a good understanding of what the technology is being used for. I've found that most big sites that have a list of "podcast directories" are either incomplete or favor commercial music. Wikipedia is by the users for the users, So please stop trying to police articles like you own wikipedia and know what's best for everyone. Let the users read what a podcast is and then link them to, not only more sites about what podcasting is, but also, sites that show the users how podcasting is being used. (posted Jan. 4 by anon i.p.)

    Thank you for taking the time to talk on this talk page and share your concerns with us. I encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and make contributions to the Wikipedia. It is a process that takes less than five minutes, and you do not even need an email address to sign up (we encourage users to supply an email addres so users can privately communicate with them, and so that passwords can be emailed to users that forget them. Wikipedia, I assume you, will never use your email addres to send you spam). However, as you have discovered, you are perfectly free to make edits from your IP.
    You may wish to read Wikipedia:External links (click on this blue link to read the article in question). Basically, we generally do not have commercial links on Wikipedia since Wikipedia's mission is to provide information that may be useful to its readers, not be a link repository. Right now, the consensus seems to be that a link to a list of podcast search engines is OK (indeed, we have this link on the links section); however a link to a indivual podcast makes the page to vulnerable to link spam (there are a zillion Podcast search engines out there).
    Again, I appreciate your contributions as a new editor of Wikipedia, and hope that you become an active editor who makes many contributions to the Wiki. Finally, to sign an entry on a talk page with your name (or IP) and the date, place this at the end of your entry: ~~~~. Samboy 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] How do you get the source code of Juice Receiver?

    I noticed that someone just readded the link to [Juice Receiver]. How do you get the source code to this program? Samboy 21:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

    The site claims it's under GPL. I don't see downloads for it on the [homepage], which means to get the source you need to email them and request it. However it looks like it's written in PYTHON, so perhaps the installers install a python interpreter and you can just view the program scripts in the install dir. --Timecop 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, I wish the Lemon would have a source code link. I don't 100% trust an "Open Source" program which can only be installed with an .exe file. Samboy 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    Seeing how it is written in python i wouldn't download it in the first place. GUI python apps are a complete and utter failure.
    If you know the project is on SF its only a matter of searching for it or simply getting to the project by going to http://sf.net/projects/projectname. The source code is in the CVS there. And I don't understand the comment about GUI programs being junk. I worked on this program in both windows and linux for over a year without any issues. Samboy you just like complaining here. Its all I see from you in your comments. --Scott Grayban 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Requesting feedback

    Due to the recent explosion of *cast related terminology flooding wikipedia with arguably useful small articles about niche activities (Photocasting anyone?), it has been proposed on various *cast related AFD's to create something similar to a List of blogging terms for podcast-related crapola. It has been suggested to create a Podcasting genres and derivatives article and move all that crap there under a single list. Opinions? Better name for the above mentioned list article? Feedback? Also note, when (not if, but when) this list is created, all the tiny little articles related to *casting will be redirected to it, after merging the contents. Discuss. --Timecop 00:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

    Excellent idea. Can't think of a better name, though: Podcasting genres seems adequate but awfully pompous. - DavidWBrooks 13:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] "personal on demand casting"

    This re-naming, so to speak, is mentioned in the article during the discussion about the name, and does not need to be inserted into the introductory paragraph. It is not important enough to be that high in the article. - DavidWBrooks 17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

    Creative aren't the first people to use 'personal on demand broadcasting' as an alternative explanation for the word podcast. While they certainly have a vested interest in detracting from the iPod name, they shouldn't be portrayed as personally coining a new phrase and trying to establish it. Dating back as far as mid July 2005, Scoble used the phrase 'Personal On Demand Casting' [6]. Jschuur 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

    It was used as early as October 2004, along with another POD alternative from Doc Searls... Those were in one of my old deleted links that JoeD found... now restored as [7]. At one point all three were in the single reference with the "Scoble" anchor, which is probably how they got separated. Bob 16 January 2006

    New Oxford Amercian Dictionary defines podcast as "a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program, made available on the Internet for downloading to a personal audio player". Also it doesnt really matter, its a stupid title anyways. Its just a news mp3 with a title that sounds like broadcast, whoopty do...No discussion should be done on this. Mac nuts, calm down the iPod doesnt matter with the name and stop the pointless villinization of Creative for trying to properly define the term. So Im changing that part...

    The term was actually coined by Ben Hammersley in an article in the Guardian on February 12, 2004 [8]. The "Personal On Demand" thing is a backronym. So I'll be changing that back then. No need for false etymology. --HTH 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] "NAME" Section: coin "POD"

    Submitted for (Community) Consideration: At the risk of providing commercial promotion for yet another profit-driven (though not nearly so) entity, might we here coin a definition for "POD" (v iPOD) as a/any "Personal Odio (pronounced "Audio") Device". "P" could also be thought to suggest "Portable"; optional, as there is no such requirement for RSS transmissions. Hopefully, keeping notions of "CASTing" safely in the hands of the "people", not the $$$'s !. re: RSS - NOT sure how to account for non-audio material. (1st-time WikiWriter) Pygar 23:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    While I understand your wish to dilute the iPod monomania, wikipedia does not exist to coin terms or try to change people's behavior. POD could stand for any manner of things {perfectly ordinary digi-music, maybe) - but it didn't when it was created, and for the vast majority of people it still doesn't. We can't pretend it does. - DavidWBrooks 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

    REDACTION: Quite likely, inappropriate for -pedia. Sorry! Pygar 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Trademark rejected

    Read this. Nicholas 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

    Doesn't show up for me - maybe it's a Firefox issue. Care to make a quick summary? - DavidWBrooks 20:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Someone tried to trademark this WikiPedia Podcasting article. There are 5 pages in PDF format they submitted and it was rejected. --Scott Grayban 10:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, it was a patent application. A trademark is a different thing altogether. --ozzmosis 19:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Hey guys, can I just repeatably remove self-promotion links

    Hey guys, is there consensus for editors just remove (as many times as needed up to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule) a link on the external link section that a given IP/user tries to add to promote their own web site? One repeated conflict I have seen in this article is that someone adds a link to their own podcasting-related web page, I remove it, and then they put it back. When they put their link back, they go to some effort to explain how their particular web page is important enough to be included in this Wikipedia page.

    The problem is this: Like most Wiki articles, the number of editors looking at a given article is relatively small. More to the point, it takes a few days for another editor besides myself to decide that a given link is self-promotional, and remove the link. I try to follow Wikipedia:One-revert rule but I feel it will help this article if I can break the one-revert rule when the editorial dispute is over whether a given link is notable enough to include in this article.

    Considering that this article is the very first result of a Google search for "Podcasting", there is a lot of temtation for people, who otherwise don't contribute to Wiki, to add a link to their web site here. I think allowing for some extra vigilance in removing links to stop "external links" from becoming too spammy is called for.

    Again, I will not break Wikipedia:One-revert rule on this issue unless there is consensus from other editors that doing so to keep link spam under control is OK. Samboy 20:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Comment in link I have removed

    I have removed, for the second time, a link to (((URL removed because it's a blacklisted WEbsite and so I can't save this page with the URL on it!))) . The IP added the following comment in this edit:

    Samboy - this link is not spammy, it follows the guideance set out above; "External links should explain Podcasting ... from a different angle" please contact me jrda _at_ lycos.com

    Here is my reply to jrda; I may email him and tell him to discuss changes in public on the talk page if he has a disagreement.

    Thank you for taking the time to comment and share your point of view with us. I always welcome new users and the contributions they can make which will improve the Wikipedia.
    I encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and make contributions to the Wikipedia. It is a process that takes less than five minutes, and you do not even need an email address to sign up (we encourage users to supply an email addres so users can privately communicate with them, and so that passwords can be emailed to users that forget them. Wikipedia, I assume you, will never use your email addres to send you spam). However, as you have discovered, you are perfectly free to make edits from your IP.
    My concern about the link to blogs.wwwcoder URLs is that this article appears to be a promotion for "Large Blue" instead of an article to help people learn more about podcasting or set up podcasts. In particular, the article just talks about the importance of podcasting and then has a commercial link to "Large Blue" at the end with the caption "Let us know if you'd like a hand"--instead of freely offering help and support.
    This in mind, I have removed the link. I encourage you to continue making contributions to the Wikipedia and encourage you to add links to the podcasting page which both follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links and follow the consensus on this talk page (Namely: 1. Don't link to non-GPL podcasting software. It is not sufficient to call the software "GPL"; we need to verify that the source code can be downloaded. 2. Don't link to a podcast search engine, but feel free to link to a list of podcast search engines) If you disagree with this consensus, you are welcome to share you feelings on this talk page.
    Again, thank you for your contributions and discussing the issues here. Samboy 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    ---

    Hi Samboy,

    Sorry for not being up on the whole 'discussions best in public thing' and I see your point about the link at the bottom of the 'what's podcasting?' article going to largblue.

    Had no intention to drive commercial traffic through wikipedia, was genuinely attempting to address the issue (I find widespread) where people don't understand why podcasting is important.

    I'm new media director of largeblue.com and we're producing podcasts for some interesting clients - major sports companies, underwear brands etc. While some of my colleagues have 'got' podcasting in the sense that they know what a podcast is, most simply don't understand why on earth our agency is suddenly producing lots of them.

    I thought I'd share an attempt at an explanation of why podcasts are exploding as a phenomenon at the moment.

    Good work keeping this page relevant - it's one of the better wikipedia pages,

    James.

    The Wikipedia Podcasting article itself is the place to explain 'what's podcasting?' and their popularity. If you think the Wikipedia article falls short in some way, you're more than welcome to improve it. And, Wikibooks is the place for a tutorial on podcasting. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] just kill ALL the links

    Why not remove ALL the external links? I'm serious.

    What makes http://www.mypods.net/ and blogs.wwwcoder.com/jrda/articles/podcasting.aspx notable enough to be included? They're just explainers, like a zillion other sites these days.

    http://www.musicpodcasting.org/ hasn't been updated in two months - kill it. Kill it even if it has been updated; it's unsufficiently unusual.

    http://peterchen.members.grokthis.net/research ... that much-debated Podcast411, hasn't been updated in six weeks. There's nothing there worth keeping. In fact, two of the links are Podcast411 - that's definitely verboten!

    This http://peterchen.members.grokthis.net/research is OK, but podcasting research is also widespread.

    Adam Curry's explanation? ... hmmm, maybe keep it. But why not stick it up as an external link with his text?

    Just delete them all - none are particularly impressive, none find things that people can't find very easily elsewhere, all beg for spammers to follow suit. That's my opinion, anyway - DavidWBrooks 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is not a link farm. --Scott Grayban 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] I have removed all but three links in the "External links" section

    In order to minimize the number of complaints from people who want to add self-promotion links to this article, and in light of David Brook's comments above, I have whittled down the number of external links down to three. I think we really need a policy that a link can't be added unless consensus supports the addition of the link. The three links I have kept are as follows:

    • http://www.podcast411.com/page2.html This is a list of list of podcast search engines. A link to just a podcast search engine will probably very quickly degenerate to a zillion links, since there are about a zillion podcast search engines. However, meta-lists (list of lists) of podcast search engines are rarer and probably few enough exist that we can comfortably list them.

    Samboy 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

    Someone added the following link, which I just removed. It contains plagerized graphs of podcast growth from other websites:
    * PodcastingStats.com Podcasting in Numbers; Statistics, Growth.
    --Ben Houston 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

    I removed the following link:

    • PodcastExpert.com A resource for "how-to" articles on everything from audio recording and editing to iTunes optimized RSS feeds.

    from the external links section. It isn't what it claims to be (a how-to collection), instead promotes a conference and provides no real information. -Zach

    [edit] too technical

    I think the introduction is too technical. A reader should see a clear definition in the first sentence of the article without having to know what "RSS syndication" is.

    Quite correct, but attempts in the past to write a layman's intro have drawn hosts of nit-picking techno fans, who slowly turn it back into jargon mush, alas. Perhaps a braver editor could try again!- DavidWBrooks 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    I gave it a burl. Is it any better? --ozzmosis 19:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] List_of_Podcatchers link removed from article

    List of Podcatchers was listed as a AfD and was deleted see -> Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Podcatchers --Scott Grayban 11:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Template for citing podcasts

    Hi all, I just created a ref-tag-useable wiki-template for citing podcasts-- initially for use on the Lost (TV series) articles. Please take a look at Template:Cite podcast to see if it meets your needs, and if there are changes/corrections that need to be made. Thanks! -LeflymanTalk 07:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Enhanced Podcasts

    Information on m4a enhanced podcasts seems to be missing from the article.

    Yes, there is that feature, and there are also some "podcasts" that are only available through iTunes and not standard RSS feeds. It would have been a big help if Apple didn't use the same name for their proprietary extensions, so it would be clearer if this stuff should be mentioned in this article, or over in iTunes. --iMb~Meow 10:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] "Other uses" section

    This contains quite a few entries, and several external links. My normal approach is editorial chainsaw, but since I know that this page is maintained by some regulars, any one of them feel like doing it? I tend to err on the side of, well, deleting. - brenneman{L} 08:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

    This is a page that attracts cruft like a bellybutton attracts link, so hack away. It'll all drift back over time, alas. - DavidWBrooks 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    It really seems to be a list of "minor firsts"; since the major "firsts" are now on a separate History page, why not move "other uses" to the bottom of that page? bstepno 20 June 2006

    [edit] Infobox for Podcasts

    Should there be an info box for podcasts? I've looked through the infobox list and on the pages marked as podcasts and couldn't find one, but it seems like something we should have, since podcasts are a medium just like tv shows and they are rising in numbers. JQF 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    Could copy Template:Infobox Television and modify to suit? --Billpg 19:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Comparison with other audio distribution methods

    The graph below was out of place in the "Name" section, so I've moved it here. I don't see a place for it unless someone wants to write a section headed something like the header above. I think the "some believe" sentence (which required the 'citeneeded' tag) is unnecessary; the current "although..." sentence in the name section seems to be enough. -- bstepno 20 June 2006

    In fact, some believe that more people listen to podcasts on personal computers more often than on portable devices [citation needed]. However, the NAB cites a Paragon Media Strategies survey in their August 22, 2005 edition of Radio Rave that shows that 51% of respondents between the ages of 18 and 64 still listed radio as their primary source for listening to music. Music downloads — the closest to podcasting on the survey only received a 3% response[9].

    [edit] Is it time to ditch the "other uses" section?

    That list of cool things people do with podcasts made sense when they were new and such uses were novel, but nowadays podcasts are ubiquitous and the list is pretty old-hat. I think it's time to ditch the section, in favor of a short paragraph saying how podcasting has a history of being used in different ways, ranging from school lessons to museum tours to this and that - no specific examples needed. Any reaction to that idea? - DavidWBrooks 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

    Back in the days when I thought this might one day become a featured article I was of the opinion that the section would have be turned in to prose, but I never got 'round to doing it. I don't really know whether it needs a section on its own or not though.
    Just repeating my thought, to scare out objections before I do anything: I'd like to kill the entire "other uses" section and turn it into a short paragraph or two. - DavidWBrooks 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Instead of killing the list, since it has a lot of historical detail, I moved it to a new article, Uses of Podcasting, and replaced it with a link and a one-sentence summary paragraph. - DavidWBrooks 13:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcatching software

    Is anyone brave or knowledgable enough to give the "comparison of podcatchers" section a first write up ? It's on the podcatcher page. Also see the talk page for some suggestions. Hope it's OK to write this here. For me, I would be willing to help write it if someone can at least put a table together, like the other "comparison of.." pages (I can't fathom how to write a table - too old ! ) thanks--Phillip Fung 11:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Apple logo

    Having the Apple podcasting logo on top of the page may give a false impression of Apple's ownership of podcasting. I've therefore moved the Apple logo from the top of the page to the "Name" section, where Apple's role is properly explained.

    Uly 04:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcast a compond word?

    Podcast is described as a compound word in this article, but it is more specifically its a portmanteau. User: Cheeseball701

    This has been the topic of vast discussion over the past couple of years. Endless, really. At one point the synopsis was that portmanteau was a pompous term, unfamiliar to almost everybody and therefore unnecessary (that's also my opinion), but at other times "portmanteau" reigned for months at a time. - DavidWBrooks 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] itpc:// protocol

    anyone know anything about the itpc:// protocol? we don't have anything on it and i can't find anything much about it on google (beyond that it is probably an itunes specific protocol for podcasting). The bellman 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

    itpc: isn't a real protocol, because RSS uses in fact standard HTTP to get to iTunes or to Creative's ZENCast Organizer (which also has its own "home-brewn" protocol). When you install iTunes, it defines in your browser a new "protocol", itpc, so that all links beginning with itpc:// instead of http:// are handled by iTunes. It's just a way they found to have the browser pass on the link to iTunes. I have no documentation on that, though, it's just my own observation of the way it works. And sorry about having written here yesterday and "forging" my own signature. I was tired and couldn't figure out how to sign ! Niccoben 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcast = Misnomer?

    The current article calls 'podcast' a misnomer. I don't think the word misnomer is particularly apt or neutral termninology. Certainly the greatest uses of podcasting is by people who download their podcast directly to an ipod. The dictionary also makes mention of the fact that broadcast is not exlusively known to radio transmission [10], so I believe the "cast" portion of podcast would not be confused with the radio. As the article mentions, Apple embraced the podcasting technique in its software, and one can speculate this played a great deal in the success of podcasting (and thus the furtherance of the term). Furthermore, the word 'podcast' cannot be a misnomer because it is simply a made up word. It is what it is. I suggest we rephrase that sentence to indicate the confusion the term podcast might cause, without using a word like misnomer, which would suggest some kind of error in its formation. --Mherlihy 08:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

    In my experience, most non-geeks believe that podcasts are "things you listen to on iPods", which is not true - so "misnomer" is the right word to use here. --Gene_poole 11:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
    It is both a neologism and a misnomer. This article should not even exist -- "podcasting" (sic) should simply redirect to webcasting. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] podcastlogo

    Some fellows in Germany created a free podcast logo licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license, since the official Apple logo is copyrighted and may not be used on podcast sites. Check it out at http://www.podcastlogo.com/

    [edit] "Concept" from 2000?

    Surely the "concept" of Podcasting is just "providing audio files for download to listen to at a later date" that somewhat resemble news or magazine shows or whatever. This doesn't come from 2000, or 2001. Or anywhere close. RTÉ used to provide their radio shows for FTP download [11] in a manner which is effectively identical to podcasting (email notifications could be received, although they weren't available at the time of that archive.org capture and they'd moved to streaming by the time of the next one) in 1996, and I really, really doubt they were the first. --Kiand 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    Not just providing the files, but providing the RSS feed or equivalent to update your "collection" automatically as soon as it's available, if you wish - that "push" aspect is what makes podcasts different that previous audio collections. - DavidWBrooks 12:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    And the email notification doesn't count as "push"? Indeed, the channel manager in Windows 98 -was- effectively identical, because if I, say, added 2FM to it I'd get notified as soon as I went online of new content. --Kiand 14:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    If I understand correctly, you'd get notified of the new content, but you wouldn't get the actual content - you'd have to take the extra step of retrieving it. It's the difference between getting a notice in the mail from my library saying that the copy of the book I wanted is waiting for me, and having a newspaper subscription that arrives at my doorstep. - DavidWBrooks 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Move to Podcast

    Currently, "Podcast" redirects to "Podcasting". Since the article discusses both and Podcast is the more general word (Google: Podcast: 411 million hits vs. Podcasting: 105 million hits]), how about if we move this article to "Podcast", redirect "Podcasting" there and reword the intro sentence a little bit? Sergeyy 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

    Why? It will create a TON of redirects with no real purpose, except possible a sort of need for tidiness. Nobody can't find this article right now because of a weird name. - DavidWBrooks 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    How much work it will create shouldn't be a reason not to move. I agree that we should move the article to Podcast. -- Ned Scott 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    I've got nothing against a move if only somebody handles all those redirects and double-redirects. --GunnarRene 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    There are precedents for both approaches: broadcasting, singing, drinking, radio_programming vs. dance, speech, design, television_program. The change might result in many attempts to rewrite the first paragraph to focus on the noun "podcast" instead of the verb. I think the change would be more trouble than it's worth. Alternative: A disambiguation page for the noun vs. verb, as in broadcast. That also could be the place to disentangle the Oxford definition (any audio "made available" online) and the more technically correct "distributed by subscription feed." Bstepno 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    Oh come on. "Correct" and "lots of work" are two different things. Even if you don't wanna do the work, we can still agree that it would be correct. Let's divide the process. First we agree what is the correct title, then we see how we proceed to fixing it. So, in step one, everybody has agreed so far. Anybody against it - with a reason other than "I think it's a lot of work"? Peter S. 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Can YouTube be considered a form as Pod Casting?

    Where does youtube fit in? 203.97.2.34 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

    Not as podcasting. It fits in with google video, vlog and video on demand. You can subscribe to videos, but it's not podcasting since there's not a client that automatically downloads videos from a stream. Correct? --GunnarRene 06:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Correct. Peter S. 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Applications

    I deleted the table of applications. Now, such a list might be somewhat useful, but it's hard to keep current and there are so many podcast applications these days. Also, such lists might attract advertising links to non-notable products. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but my main argument is that the need for currency of information and editorial vetting makes such a table more suitable for a publication in the WP:RS category than in the encyclopedia that everyone can edit; or perhaps in a software directory. Can't we supply links to such sites rather than having to update the information ourselves?--GunnarRene 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

    Sounds good to me. It's a good example of material that was relevant, due to novelty, when podcasting was new but is now so routine as to not be relevant. - DavidWBrooks 00:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    I agree. I had added it due to the merge and redirect from Podcatcher, but have no attachment to the list :) -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    There was still a "See also: Podcatcher" listing, which looped back to the podcasting page. I commented it out, but it probably should be deleted if this discussion doesn't shift directions. The History of podcasting page still has references to early podcatching programs, which seems appropriate. So I added a parenthetical cross-ref in the Mechanics section, including an attempt to discourage rebuilding a list.Bstepno 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Origin of 'Podcatcher' term?

    I'm curious about the merging of "Podcatcher" with the "Podcast" entry. It appears that the merger took place as Podcatcher now redirects. I'll disclose up front the reason for my curiosity: in the original "Podcatcher" entry, it was noted that I coined the term on 10/9/2004. It was coined in a on-line review of Doppler posted on the now defunct PocketPCTools website which can be validated via Google cache. That review became the basis of what I believe is the first print magazine mention of podcasting and podcatchers with a write up on how to listen to podcasts on a Pocket PC. The article hit print in January of 2005: See the February issue of Pocket PC Magazine here.

    I've disclosed my personal interest up front in an effort of transparency. However, my ultimate question: is the origin of the term "podcatcher" relevant to this entry or the History of Podcasting entry? If not, no worries. Thanks! KevinTofel 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

    One person making up a word in one review does not make a term notable. Personally, I had never even heard of the term until coming across that article (of course I didn't make that my only reason to redirect it). Do we have examples of other notable magazine articles /reviews / etc where the word is used? -- Ned Scott 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    I completely understand, but I'm surprised you've not heard the term prior to an article that's almost two years old. The word is used to describe numerous podcast aggregation applications as evidenced by a Google search on "podcatcher". Let me ask a different way: what are these podcast-specific aggregators generally called? Perhaps they're just called "aggregators", perhaps not. If the term isn't notable, then there likely shouldn't be two paragraphs devoted to the term in the current Podcasting Wikipedia entry. KevinTofel 15:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Applications? Clients? -- Ned Scott 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] See Also - Screen Casting

    Added a 'See also' reference to Screencast & reorganized the See Also links a bit into categories.

    • See Also
    • General Podcasting Community
    • Podcasting Distribution Networks
    • Audio Podcasting
    • Video Image Podcasting

    -HTH Awildman 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] anon comment

    Just an idea, maybe the Podcast wasn't named as a squashing together of iPod and Broadcast. Maybe it is so called because episodes of said broadcasts are distributed in "pods" as their own seperate entities

    [edit] Blend (linguistics) vs. Portmanteau

    Regarding the latest discussion on the topic;
    "oh boy - let's waste time with the "portmanteau" argument again! Me first: It's a pompous term that means nothing to most people, and shouldn't be in an introduction that is supposed to *inform*" -DavidWBrooks

    I argue that it better to educate people about the subtleties in language than to just inform them. Plus having fun with words. I really don't care, just thought the intellectuals would get a kick out of it. Linguistic blend is so blah... Since when is using the right word "pompous"? Did you really mean that?
    What links to Blend (linguistics) VS. What links to Portmanteau
    --Travisthurston 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    People who don't understand English shouldn't be using an English language encyclopedia. Portmanteau is a perectly valid word that accurately describes the subject of the article. We're not in the business of dumbing down content to entertain the ignorant here. --Gene_poole 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    The fact that 1000 articles do a silly thing is no reason for No. 1001 to follow suit. "Blend" is also a perfectly valid word that accurately describes the subject of the article, and it has the great advantage of being understood by more people - which is the point of this article. We're trying to inform them about podcasting rather than impress them with our linguistic range.
    I don't think using "blend" is dumbing down, I think it's making a reasonable word choice, which is one of the things that writing is all about (speaking as somebody who has made a living writing news articles for 25 years). However, it's also a judgement call, with no right or wrong; both words are correct in a dictionary sense. (The introduction to portmanteau says "In linguistics, these folk portmanteaux are called blends") So despite my annoying Edit Summary yesterday I won't renew the portmanteau edit war of last year. - DavidWBrooks 11:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    A blend is what you get when you mix 3 fruits in a juicer. Portmanteau relates specifically to words. If there's a precise term for something we should use it by preference - not substitute some half-assed alternative. --Gene_poole 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    I never knew what a "portmanteau" was until I started surfing Wikipedia. But the first time I encountered it (don't remember the specific entry), it was immediately obvious by context. I think most people will understand it in context. I think it's fantastic that there is an English word with the precise definition we need in cases like this. And that means we should use the word "portmanteau" whenever it applies (such as "podcast"). BJ Nemeth 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Major Cleanup: This really needs a fix

    -Apple has very little to do with the term Podcast. They should not have free advertisements including huge images included in this article.

    -External links that link to podcasts and podcast directories that can be found outside of the relevant context of this article and would not otherwise merit individual inclusion in wikipedia have been deleted.

    -The massive confusion and controversy around the term "podcasting" forces us all to make an open and powerful attempt to neutralize this article.

    -Apple currently has legal matters regarding the trademark of the terms pod and podcast. They are issueing C&D orders with questionable cause, wikipedia should not take sides in this issue by supporting Apple's claims.

    -POD is an acronym for Portable on Demand. This can be found all over the next, many people, including myself still use this as our definition for the "pod" part of "podcasting".

    That this article was flagged as a good article boggles the mind. IT is so riddled with misinformation an easily disprovable notions that it must get a total overhaul. As well as the good article procedure need to be revamped entirely.

    Podcasting itself can stand on its own and be fully defined without needing to include Apple or one of many devices that are capable of playing some podcasts. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Products and Companies and the credit they deserve shall not be unsung, however will not be superfluously inserted where business and marketing interests are concerned. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Testerer (talk • contribs) .

    I understand what you are trying to get at, but the fact of the matter is the name itself only got picked up and used because of the mass use of iPods, and we all fucking know it. For crying out loud.. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry Ned Scott, as much as Steve Job's and Adam Curry Might hope this were true, the miracle of podcasting has nothing to do with a plastic mp3 player, it is about the syndication and automation of the process. Let's look a little further back in history. Why did Apple pick the name Pod? Obviously For what it conceptually symbolizes and what the acronym means. If you want to be one of the confused out there who've bought in to the marketing and hype then fine, it doesn't mean that this wiki doesn't need to accurately reflect reality. I've personally never seen any studies or surveys that show that massive use of iPods helped lead to the rise in popularity of the format.

    Actually, wide support from Bloggers and end users spreading the concept through word of mouth probably increased the popularity more than any iPod. Again, what % of current Ipod owners listen to podcasts. I bet its far, far lower than you'd imagine.

    I've never seen studies of what % of iPod users are active podcast listeners. In fact, Podcasting only became popular once mainstreamers like NPR and the New York Times embraced it as a format. Even today, many studies show that most people listen through their PC and not at all on an ipod. There is plenty of room for Apple to be included in this article but a huge image of their Itunes logo and falsely giving them credit for what was clearly an independent upstart devoid of marketing and commerce. The name was not "picked up" because of massive ipod use. The name was adopted by people who felt it was adequate to describe the technology, but even today, the debate continues. Thus the greater need for neutrality and open debate on this article.

    Another huge omission in the article is this notion: Portable On Demand Casting = The act of Podcasting using a portable device to record one's broadcast.

    Thank you - Testerer

    [edit] Examples of why this Articles needs a lot of Work, Please stop just undoing without a fair discussion

    Ned, I appreciate your willingness for bold reversals of corrected material, but frankly your information is not currect.

    E1: "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."

    This doesn't describe the term itself, nor is it at all accurate or specific. It is very general and unhelpful in nature. If you wanna discuss OPML feeds etc there is a place for that content in a more appropriate article.

    E2: "A Pod by any other name...

    Does Apple own the pod? Could podcasting, podcasts, and anything with the word "Pod" in the name become the property of Apple computers? Current legal actions taken by Apple include applying to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the word "pod" as a trademark [2] and filing cease and desist orders with any company using the word "pod" in their title. [3] [4]

    In response, technology expert Leo Laporte has suggested changing the name to Netcast. [5]"

    OK, This is full of pure speculation and moreover, poor writing. Does Apple own the pod? If you aren't going to include actual information then its not wiki worthy, sorry. It's not. Another huge thing is that this article includes polemics about the name itself rather than focusing on its mechanics. Since you've show complete disregard for my cleanups including reworking the layout of the page, prioritizing the mechanics of the podcasting rather than highling the obviously controversial origin of the term. What does the line about Leo Laporte have to do anything? Again, speculation and nothing substantial.


    E3: Apple's Podcasting Logo Must Go.

    There is no reason such a company should recieve unfair exposure going so far as to include a trademarked logo in a public and supposedly informative wiki- It's got to go. Unless anyone has a reason for its inclusion I will again delete it. Put the image on the wiki for itunes or Apple but please either make the case for it being kept or respect the evolution of the wiki. All I've seen is wide cut and paste, massive reversals of user (my) additions to this article. I did not do this when I attempted to first clean it up, I made a point and took the time to include the very important information that others before me had given. Might I suggest using a symbol for RSS or XML, something that actually describes podcasting specifically and not a single Podcasting product.

    E4: "Podcasting is an automatic mechanism whereby multimedia computer files are transferred from a server to a client, which pulls down XML files containing the Internet addresses of the media files"

    This is wrong also. No XML files are pulled down by any aggregators. They are simply read, the feeds are not stored locally which this explanation implies. Podcasting also includes the process of downloading data automatically and then automatically sending it to a device. These files do not need to be "mutlimedia" (assuming you mean mp3, mp4, m4a, etc..) they can in fact be any type of file at all. The explanation is not only technically wrong, its incomplete.

    E5: A podcast is generally analogous to a recorded television or radio series.

    This is also not really the case, a podcast implies that the content is avaible through a feed for automated download. The content itself might be similiar to TV or Radio but its certainly not analogous in the way this single statement claims. Using the term Podcast makes different assumptions about means of syndication etc..

    E6: The feed is a machine-readable list of the URLs by which episodes of the show may be accessed.

    Machine-readable? Who wrote this? ;) The mechanics of Podcasting is of course a software solution to a problem, the only machines that come into play are the end devices that may or may not automatically be updated depending on user preference and features of the aggregator.

    E7: Consumer enters this feed URI into a software program called a podcatcher, a type of aggregator.

    Only a small number of people actually use the term "podcatcher". Podcasters themselves typically do not use this term, nor is a real term (ie: it's a made up term afterall). This is another example of disinformation within this article. How about this as a fix "Consumer uses an aggregator (program designed to read and manage internet feeds) to download podcasts." Why include information that's not really true, and might confuse the average reader.

    E8: (Early podcatchers are named in the History of podcasting page, but constantly updating a comprehensive list of software is beyond the scope of these encyclopedia entries.)

    Very similiar criticism as the previous example, but even more so, this is written meta that doesn't need to be included, its obvious to anyone that a list of aggregators would not be included on the article about Podcasting. It is redundant, and continues to use the term Podcatcher (Which doesn't even have a wiki article of its' own ((for a reason)) which is disinformative.

    E9: "# iTunes Podcast Step by Step

    1. Make Your First Podcast How to Podcast instructions for the beginner.
    2. Lists of podcast directories: CastWiki, Podcast 411, Digital Podcast, Podcasting News
    3. Podcasters Wiki
    4. Podfeed.net's Top 100 A list of the top 100 most subscribed podcasts via Feedburner.
    5. PodcastExpert.com Links to "how to" articles across the Internet on everything from creating RSS feeds to recording equipment"

    The External Links section is full of Advertisements and for profit groups that have a personal interest in shaping information related to podcasting. I strongly believe that no website with such a financial stake in this matter merits inclusion under external links. Most of these are for profit groups. Others are not "notable" enough to be included in wikipedia themselves. Podfeed.net is the best example of a link that should not be included because they run advertisements including Google Ads and stand to make more money should they be included on this list.

    E10: The bit about Robert Scoble should be removed because its pure gossip and doesn't provide any information. This speculative assertion should moved to the article for Scoble and a discussion on its inclusion needs to take place there.

    There are many, many more examples of inaccuracies and disinformation, as well as blantant speculation on a term that isn't actually linked to one person. I hope the discussion can continue and that changes are not made without fair discourse.

    thanks- Testerer

    While I agree with most of what you brought up, I disagree with the whole issue if ignoring that the iPod effected the name itself. Portable on demand? give me a fucking break. You really think people who use the term pod-casting actually think it means that? Right now I'm not willing to pick through the edits to separate the good from the bad. Your objections to the external links section is based on morals, which is honorable and all, but that's NOT how we do things on Wikipedia. We do not exclude information or attempt to rewrite history because someone made a dollar off of it. Again, I agree with most of your edits, but at the current moment I'm unable to sort through them. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

    And fortunately its not up to you to sort through it. I don't even know who you are. Again you've just clicked the undo button without making any case? Who are you to say how "we" do things at wikipedia. This is the last time I'm fixing what you keep undoing Ned, If I have to talk to someone else I will. MY objections are not based on morals, they are based on the rules of wikipedia jackass. You can't have blatant advertisements and demonstrably false information in this kind of article. Ned, I'm 100% serious, stop just undoing the progress here, you're basing everything on your opinion and not doing any research.

    "Again, I agree with most of your edits, but at the current moment I'm unable to sort through them"

    Then leave them the hell alone. POD was an acronym for Portable on Demand long before fanboys like you ever got your hands on an ipod. Just because the marketing worked you, doesn't mean that's reality. I won't let bullheadedness stand in the way of information. Unless you can disprove anything I'm saying, you need to stop your massive reversions. I'm a podcaster. I remember putting copies of the Howard Stern Show on an ancient samsung Yepp long before the 1st ipod was ever thought of.

    I gave 10 examples of blatantly bad information and critically flawed elements of this article, all you do is click undo and lob a few curse words? That's not how it works around here Ned Scott.

    Either disprove and deal with the changes that have been made, or go elsewhere, stop vandalizing this article Ned AND I appreciate if you lighten the tone and get rid of your "f-you" attitude. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and will not be tolerated.

    --Testerer

    Regardless of who's right - I think the iPod connection is pretty well established, but don't know enough to be certain - the current write-up in embarrassingly sophomoric in its whiny polemic tone. Whoever is responsible should try to rewrite it (which partly means cut it WAY down) like a grown-up, and then they'll have more chance of it being judged on the facts - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    Heh, personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, please see WP:NPA. I am not a fanboy, I don't own an iPod, and I don't subscribe to podcasts. But I do know what they are, and I was around when they became big. You calling my actions vandalism is absurd and rude. According to WP:V, a core policy on Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on you, the editor wishing to include the change, not those who seek to remove it. Is Apple a bunch of assholes for trying to copyright "pod"? hell yes, and I wish they wouldn't pull shit like that, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    How's this? It doesn't contain a lot of the original research that was found with both claims, is a lot cleaner, and still includes the rest of your edits. -- Ned Scott 01:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    Wow Ned, I'm really happy with the new edit, I think its nice and clean and really does alot to focus the content on the mechanics and on the "how it works", "what it does" which (imho) is most vital to being informative to any reader. I love the idea of moving the entire naming section to the History article, totally good call on that. Really glad it's turned out to be a superior article, I think I was (reasonably) startled by the um.. "growing pains" it took to come to this point, but that I supposed is only natural on the internet with no real nuance to speak of. Anyways, that's all water under the bridge and I'm glad you decided to go ahead, being bold and edit again, because this time, its a really good article. I noticed you said you don't subscribe to any podcasts, that doesn't mean your not a listener right? Thanks again- Testerer.

    Perhaps I'm missing it, but there's no evidence in the article, or the history article, about the "portable on demand" acronym existing pre-iPod. Since it has been claimed in previous discussion that this was a backronym made up after the fact by people annoyed at Apple's dominance, the statement needs some backup or I'm sure it will get removed. - DavidWBrooks 10:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    It was already included in previous edits made in the last week but with all the shifting I'm not suprised it got overlooked. David, http://www.pods.com/ was founded in 1998, using that acronym years before the ipod debuted in 2002. The acronym can also be found at many acronym finders, try this one. http://www.acronymfinder.com/ Nobody is "bacronyming" here, its evident in reality that Apple chose the name pod for its already understood meaning "a container etc.." but surely they did the research (for legal reasons if no other) and found PODS on the net and probably liked the acronymic value. Fair question, hope its answered. BTW- you can listen to some really old podcasts and the phrase "portable on demand" is also used, those are a bit harder to site as show note evolution is still not on par with the rest of the format. I'm not annoyed at Apple because they certainly don't dominate the podcasting world, a clear majority of people listen on their desktop! ;) -Testerer

    Don't try to convince me: convince the readers of the article. (Although I'm not sure what an acronym related to storage containers has to do with MP3 players - unless Apple took the name "iPod" from the Personal-on-Demand acronym they found in other industries? I've always assumed they just chose it because of the sound and look of the machines, but perhaps that's wrong.) As far as I can see, the history article says the first mention of the "pod" name was in 2004 - which supports the theory that it was born out of association with "iPod", not anything else. If that's not correct, the article needs to be changed. - DavidWBrooks 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

    Sorry David, I must have misunderstood when you wrote "Perhaps I'm missing it, but there's no evidence in the article", I thought you wanted me to help you further understand the article, you know, provide you with the information you asked for. When you wrote "about the "portable on demand" acronym existing pre-iPod", I surely assumed that you wanted to know why someone would think that. That's why I gave you a link to a company (thats rather sizable FWIW) thats embraced the common acronym. You sorta accused people of making up the acronym, using the term "backronym", obviously you can see, the acronym long predates the ipod. Probably the storage company also. Lastly, to your question of "Although I'm not sure what an acronym related to storage containers has to do with MP3 players", I can only tell you than if you hadn't noticed, all mp3 players are type of portable storage container, or pod. It also just happens to be portable on demand. And podcasts themselves are uniquely "portable on demand". You can record a podcast with a device that is portable on demand, like an iriver. This is probably why Apple picked the word pod, because it has a definition based on what we find in nature. They didn't pick the word pod because of the look and sound of their devices, but you might not take my word for it.

    I can't make the connection for you, but I hope this clears things up. Wish you weren't so hung up on being sure about where the name came from, nobody is 100% sure, if someone could link to the 1st article that used the term, then the fight would be over, guess what, nobody can. That's why what Ned did to consolodate everything and include a more universal look at the article was so huge, I'm really glad he moved the "name" issue to the History Article. If you didn't know, people have been fighting about Podcast history for almost as long as this medium has been around, not unlike Web 2.0, was it Tim O'reilly or someone else. Either way, it can only matter so much before it becomes to hinder the progress of wikipedia. The fact is, podcasting is a made up combination of 2 words. Pod already has a meaning, Apple just borrowed it, they didn't change its meaning by sticking teh "i" in front, casting is the easy part, we all agree on that, even though its anything but casting the way its works of coures is actually to pull, then push. but ironically we're all fine with that part. One last thing, "born out of association with" isn't definitive at all, that's actually a weaker explanation than the one that's currently in the article. -Testerer

    Some refs, just so everybody knows, I'm not the only one on the "Portable on Demand" train.

    • From the Newsweek Podcasts site: "Think of these podcasts as audio magazine subscriptions or portable on-demand radio shows"

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7078547/site/newsweek/

    • Several Commentors on Engadget feel the same, of course some disagree

    http://www.iconnectdots.com/ctd/2006/09/podcast_is_ours.html

    • From the PodcastAlley.com blog: "Finally, the etymology. While I agree that the iPod helped with the growth of podcasting as a medium, it is not solely responsible for its formation. Stupid as it may sound, I do think more that PODcasting stands more for Portable On Demand than it does any reference to the iPod itself because 90% of the shows I listen to never see my iPod."

    http://www.podcastalley.com/blog/2006/08/25/podcasting-in-dictionary-a-few-errors/

    • Commentors on the Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: "PODCAST= Portable On Demand broadCast."

    http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/archives/podcasting/005126.html

    • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Doug Mills, CITES EdTech Consultant: "Although many trace the "pod" portion of the word "podcast" to the "iPod", others argue that the acronym "POD" standing for "Portable on Demand" predates the phenomenon of podcasting and accounts for the term."

    http://www.cites.uiuc.edu/edtech/teaching_showcase/articles/mills/podcasting/index.html

    • Geek News Central: "we are producing Podcast which stands for Portable On Demand Broadcast."

    http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/006424.html#trackbacks

    There are lots more, but hopefully this supplements previous links. -Testerer

    Why don't you put some of these in the article, instead of here in the talk space? Do you know how to do references? - DavidWBrooks 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


    That's a good idea David, I'm kinda short on time right now, but later on I'll try and put them into the article. I do have a small problem with the way sources and citations work in wikipedia, that's for another discussion, wish there was a way to cite the source or info without necessarily driving traffic to an external (possibly for profit) site. -Testerer

    [edit] Guide for new users

    This is just a note to say that I'd really like to see here - prominently - a simple guide for people who've heard of podcasting but aren't sure yet exactly what it is or how they can subscribe to podcasts. Shouldn't take too much work, but I'm not very experienced in the area so I'm not sure I'm the best person for the job. Anyone? --Oolong 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    It's Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not NOT to do that sort of thing - to quote from the list of things that Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Also, there are a bazillion instruction sets for podcasting online; it's not like it's some secret we need to reveal. - DavidWBrooks 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

    Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
    Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 04:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] 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. 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. 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.

    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)
    WP:FUC says we can't use the Apple logo. The "stupid" FireFox thing is a standard podcasting icon that is freely available for anyone to use. For one, this article is not for the history of Podcasting, that would be History of podcasting. See the discussions above. Many things were removed for violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. These are policies and are not optional, no matter how useful that information might have been. That being said, it seems some editors are simply just over-reacting and making this a bigger deal than it is. I feel this article is just as useful as it was before. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


    Ned, thank's for putting into 1 paragraph what I couldn't fit on a page. Instead of posting my comments here, I just put them on my user page to save space. It is the only thing on that page so its easy to find. If anyone wants me to post it here, I will, just let me know. There has been alot of work and discussion and I too feel that this article is as useful as it was before and perhaps now more universal, some citations need to get added but that can be done easily. Thanks Again- Testerer 04:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    hell

    Block quote

    The above is an example of the disrespect that some have decided to show this article. Recently there have been critical information changes to this article without any explanation or discussion. This is a very dangerous thing. I just did a"Way Back Machine" search through the publicly funded website, Archive.org and found that podcast.com was registered and updated in 2002 and throughout 2003. Unfortunately, a historical page can't be found due to some failed connection issue, but that doesn't mean that the information, the dates aren't accurate. That tells me that in late 2002 the term had already been coined, more than a year before Ben Hammersley allegedly coined the term. Obviously he didn't if someone owned a website with that name in 2002 and updated it then and in 2003. The article listed as a reference for the part on Hammersley isn't the actual article from 2004, but you can see when you read it that he doesn't come out and coin the term, nor does he use in in a moment of clarity and the term just sticks. Wikipedia information must be encyclopedic. I believe changes should not be made to any article without the consideration of all contributors who are working to improve the article. Anytime someone changes the article, its respectful to explain the reason and offer substantive sources. It is totally disrespectful not to be a part of the discussion, it also doesn't use collaboration to work towards progress. Ben Hammersley seems to have a somewhat sorted history with at least 1 obvious pioneer of both blogging and podcasting, did anyone know that he threatened to sue Dave_Winer in 2002? Can we all agree that Mr. Winer played a hugely important role in the very early developments of podcasting, as did Christopher_Lydon and Adam_curry. Can we all agree on that? Doesn't anyone find it a bit strange that the blogger who had beef with Mr. Winer is claiming to have coined the term, (or at least the wiki for Hammersley does). The article from 2004 in the Gaurdian doesn't say, "I made up this term" or "I say we call it podcasting because", he uses it only once in the middle of 2 other possible terms for podcasting. It isn't conclusive proof that he coined it, its certainly not encylopedic. SO when I get time I'll try and clean up some of the vandalism that has recently taken place, obviously the big story of Apple re: Trademarking "podcast" has brought enormous attention to this article and I hope I can get some help from Ned and many others to help stop all of this vandalism. The current version is not acceptable, some random person stated that Hammersley coined the term and it was "meant as a contraction of "broadcasting" and "iPod"." Hammersley never says that in his article, he doesn't say, here is this word, its a mix of these 2 words. Thus, its not a proven certainty. Not worthy of the article. Besides that, its clear that someone was only interested in dealing with the "name" itself, and thus made an edit, why wasn't the format of the article (thats just been cleaned up by several users) respected and the information about Hammersley placed in the History of Podcasting article? Its one thing to have a different opinion, quite another to ignore the format of the entire article. Linking to an article where a word is used doesn't, on its own, prove anything at all. Charles Arthur and Jack Schofield say in a current article what Hammersley "meant" when he used podcasting, that's also not reliable as it is their interpretation. If it is truly about the origin of the term then greater attention to detail must be given. Testerer 04:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    There is no reason to fill up the article on "what is" podcasting with endless links on newbie information or "how to's" regarding podcasting. the #5 exception you noted is so vague that it only leaves room for very good judgement. The web is full of beginners information on podcasting, instructional information is everywhere. The article regarding Mr. Hammersley can not be substiated, unless you can prove that it was the 1st mention of the word, it's got to go, all information must be encyclopedic and that allegation is already in the history of podcasting area. I'm not sure why this is such a divisive issue for some, but I strongly believe that enough research has been done to show that the term "pod" itself is often and likely entirely unassociated with the iPod. Because so many iPod owners have automatically assumed (through massive disinformation and various marketing campaigns) this creates a problem. I truly hope that one line of redudant, highly provocative theory doesn't get in the way of this article's progress.

    Testerer 07:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcasting moved to Podcast

    Per some previous discussions and such, Podcasting as moved to Podcast. All the double redirects are updated and I'll go over some of the direct linking now that I have a day off from work. Just thought I would mention this. -- Ned Scott 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    The intro needs to be rewritten - it starts out defining podcasting not podcast. - DavidWBrooks 01:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Good job! Thanks! Peter S. 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Podfade Merged with Podcast?

    I noticed that the Podfade stub has been merged with this article but I do not see the term added to the page. Will definition of podfade be incorporated into this article ? Ccadenhead 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Dispute

    This article has been delisted, primarily for the rather extensive problems and allegations mentioned above on this talk page, but also due to reference problems and stability concerns. Dispute archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7 Homestarmy 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7

    [edit] Ogg Vorbis

    I like podcasts with Ogg Vorbis (.ogg) file format. (please sign with ~~~~)

    Me too. The Ogg format is also free to use compared to mp3. Anyway the mp3 is supported on the majority of portable players. SNx 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Merge/Redirect Netcast here?

    The article Netcast is essentially a duplicate of this article, plus some posturing about how much better the term 'netcast' is than 'podcast'. It borders on a content fork, IMO. The merger tag has been removed twice by the same anon who started the article (over a redirect) with pretty much no discussion on the matter. Most editors on Talk:Netcast (that is, all but the aforementioned anon) seem to be in favor of a merge, but the {{mergeto}} tag seems to want the discussion to take place on the target article's talk page, so here it is.

    I don't think an in-depth discussion on the relative merits of the terms is warranted, and most of the rest of the article's content is duplicated here already, so the most we'd need would be a quick reference somewhere on the page (I don't know where would be best) acknowledging the alternate word. Any objections to the redirect, or ideas on how the term 'netcast' should be handled in this article? -- Vary | Talk 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

    If there are two terms with identical meanings (and that's what the "netcasters" are proposing), they should, by definition, point to the same article. It's also clear that the term "podcast" has much greater acceptance and understanding than "netcast," so it should be the primary term. (Arguments that it confuses people into thinking they need an iPod to listen is irrelevant here.) "Netcast" could be mentioned in the introduction as an alternative term, with a short section deeper in the article briefly summarizing the reason why some are advocating the term. Additionally, other Wikipedia articles that mention podcasts should use that term, and not netcast. (Unless the usage is specifically referring to the controversy between the two terms.) BJ Nemeth 09:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    I've gone back through the history on the netcast article, and I confirm that there is just one anonymous user voting down the merge each time with no discussion. At one point, the anonymous contributor wrote one line on the discussion page calling it "relevant," and then saying, "There is no case for this merger," one minute before deleting the merger tag. This seems like one of the most clear-cut cases there could be for merging articles -- two terms with the exact same definition. The netcast controversy should be listed as a section in the podcast article.
    I don't know anything about the technical aspects of merging articles, but I'll offer to summarize the netcast article for placement here. But to avoid acting unilaterally, I'll wait for one other person to vote that the netcast article should be merged here, probably under the Name section. If you disagree with the merge, please give a reasonable argument. BJ Nemeth 08:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    Doesn't look like there's any complaint, so I'm adding 'netcast' under the 'name' section and redirecting that article. -- Vary | Talk 03:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for handling the merge, Vary. (I don't have those Wikipedia skills yet.) Your minor revision to this article ("Podcast") looks good to me. :) BJ Nemeth 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    I believe that Podcast and Netcast are different. Apple is trying to own the term Pod. Net is more general. If anything Podcast should be redirected to Netcast. There is a fight brewing of the term Podcast and the future of this media depends on it not being an Apple only product. Netcast is a safe word for a growing community of netcasters reaching out to world that may or may not own an iPod. (RY) 12:22pm Dec 10, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.160.166 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] hm

    Should something be said about the fact that "podcasting" is such a revolutionary idea that it's only something anyone with a microphone, internet connection, and a pulse has been able to do twenty years before the technology came out? Damien Shiest 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] This article is tops on Google

    I just thought I'd mention to anyone who lurks here, that if you do a Google search for "en.wikipedia.org", the first hit is the Main Page, and the second is this article. Why do you suppose that this is, do you think a lot of places on the web have links here in order to inform people what a podcast is?

    Or, should I suspect Google bombing?

    I suppose it doesn't really matter. It is just surprising that of all the topics with articles on Wikipedia, "podcasting" is the one that comes up... Spebudmak 02:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] What about Netcasting?

    I typed in Netcasting and this article came up.
    That isn't right as I see it. Just as Youtube isn't consider a podcast and for the same reason e-radio stations that don't offer subscription seriveces or on-demand content are not podcasting.
    So what are they doing?
    I've always called it netcasting to indicate streaming media being transmitted over the Internet.
    Either the Redirect should be sent to streaming media or a sentence or two making clear the distinction should be inserted in this article. Really both articles should clarify the term since over 1,300,000 sites use the term netcast. Agreed?
    JussD 20:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


    As sure as I posted my question I noticed that it'd been clearly debated before. However, in reading the Naming section of the article the definition given for podcast includes the notion that something is downloaded for play at the listeners discretion. Netcasting means something entirely different. ASCAP and BMI know the difference. They won't allow copyright material to be podcast. But netcasting is fine since it is does not make a copy of the content but merely streams it for the audience to listen to only at the time of transmission. I propose inserting this distinction where the term "netcasting" is already presented in the article.
    JussD 20:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

    The definition you accept for "netcast" doesn't match the mainstream media that has been following recent usage of that term. Your definition falls in line with webcast, which has key differences from podcast, as you mentioned. "Netcast" has been controversially proposed as a replacement for the word "podcast," to remove any reference to Apple's iPod. Because "netcast" has become a widely accepted synonym for podcast, it redirects to this article. BJ Nemeth 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification. I'd forgotten about the term "webcast." Still, don't you think there should be some mention of the technical difference between the two in this article. I still propose that where the alternate term "netcasting" is proposed in this article, webcasting should be briefly mentioned with a clarrification to the download difference between them.JussD 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think a sentence or paragraph contrasting "podcast" with "webcast" would be a good and useful addition to this entry, but I don't have time to do it right now. Any takers? BJ Nemeth 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Does wikipedia have articles about specific podcasts?

    I'm just wondering why I haven't bee able to find articles about specific podcasts. I see there's some controversy about this because of the possibility of commercial abuse but I've found pages for other things, like web comics, which I think are simmilar. Is there a particular reason there are no podcast articles? I would write articles myself but I fear the wrath of people who have adamant feelings about the subject and the same ammount of influence as me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.222.152.160 (talk • contribs) 03:32, November 22, 2006.

    I think the controversy you're referring to might be the one about linking to podcasts from this article. Because there's no good way to decide which podcasts should and should not get a link from this page, it's best just not to link to any specific podcasts or podcast directories: otherwise we'd either wind up with a massive list of links or just debate endlessly about how many podcasts to include and which ones make the cut.
    But wikipedia does allow articles on individual podcasts: see Category:Audio podcasts for the ones we already have. Not every podcast (or web comic, or circus performer) should have an article, though, so before you create any new articles you should also check out WP:WEB for some notability guidelines. If an article doesn't satisfy the requirements in that page it will probably be deleted, either by speedy deletion or by the articles for deletion process. -- Vary | Talk 03:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] New external link

    I have created a new external link to 'Podcast', this link is to Podcast User magazine. This magazine in PDF format, issued montly and covers all aspects of podcasting, from listener to producer. We are proud to be independant of any podcast (or commercial) organisations.

    Our ethos is to educate, inform and entertain. All the items writen are by podcasters themselves, the reviews are personal views and use and not sponcered by the manufacturers. We explain in simple english what's involved, how to find media and aviod the pitfals in what can be a confussing subject.

    We have recently nothched up our 100,000th download and are received in over 101 countries.

    Jimmy halfajob@ntlworld.com Halfajob 15:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)jimmy

    [edit] Hammersly, the Guardian, and "coining" podcasting

    as mentioned before the wayback machine at archive.org shows that podcast.com far predates the 2004 article that recently got cut due to no means of corroborating the account. Here is the wayback machine archive.org search that shows that the term obviously goes back to at least 2002, a good year+++ before the Gaurdian article that Hammersly so often gets credit for.

    Here is the link: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://podcast.com

    Thanks 71.234.110.209 06:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what this is supposed to be showing. Since the site has no content prior to 2005, we don't know why someone registered that name. It could be that someone at the time wanted to name something else "podcast" and that it was unrelated to the current use of the word. Just a thought. -- Ned Scott 23:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


    [edit] Beginning of article cleanup?

    "An amazingly sweet podcast is a multimedia file distributed over the Internet using syndication feeds, for a wicked sick playback on mobile devices and personal computers. [1] Like 'radio', it can mean both the content and the method of delivery; the latter may also be termed podcasting. The host or author of a podcast is often called a podcaster."

    "This thingy is so awsome<3"

    Uh, "amazingly sweet", "wicked sick", and an out-of-place "this thingy is so awesome"...? In an encyclopedia? I'm going to leave those items where they are, because it seems astonishing that they have not been removed yet unless they are there for some specific reason, although that doesn't seem to set a tone one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.39.161 (talk • contribs) .

    I'm a bit confused, it doesn't say that at all, and it doesn't seem like it has said that in the article history any time recently. -- Ned Scott 06:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Merging with webcasts, iptv, etc.

    I was wondering, how about creating some big topic, like "New Media" or something and in there explaining what is IPTV and what's it's connection with podcasting, this kind of things. For me the way it is done right now is a bit confusing. It could be a big WikiProject. (Madmck 22:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

    New Media is like Web 2.0, its a big marketing term designed to get people hyped up. It also doesn't describe podcasting at all. The wiki article for New Media reads like an ad and is anything but decisive or even generally informative. I understand the spirit of what your are saying, but we could merge time shifting and tivo rss and podcasting and aggregators and and and ;) 71.234.110.209 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Cleanup

    Been a while since I stopped at this entry, it actually looks nice and clean, right to the point and it does a good job of describing the mechanics and concept without getting into polemics or irrelevant content related to the name itself. I recently tried to clean up the external links section. Any feedback would be appreciated. Good work peoples 71.234.110.209 03:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcastexpert.com re: 69.234.130.122?

    Someone with the ip address 69.234.130.122 continues to submit the website Podcastexpert.com to the external links section of this article. Myself, and others have removed it and cited wiki policy on why it should not be included. Despite our efforts this user continues to submit this link with no explanation of their actions, no justification or attempted discussion on inclusion.

    Here are the previously stated reasons not to include this website as described in the article:

    "PodcastExpert.com Links of "how to" articles across the Internet on everything from creating RSS feeds to recording equipment

    1: It read's like ad copy. "articles across the internet on everything..." not neutrally written. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

    2: "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." WP:NOT#IINFO

    3: The link in question is a redirect that links to the New Media Expo website, this is a conference company's website. "Do not use URL redirection sites in external links." and "It is generally preferred to link to the exact destination of a link." are direct quotes from Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites policy.

    4: This site is not symmetrically related to the term "podcast itself", particularly in contrast to the others listed. See more about symmetry under "Links normally to be avoided" here -> WP:EL

    5: This site also appears to be mainly promoting itself and its conference company, which is the website itself that's being linked to. As opposed to the other external links that also link to subsections of other websites. Those sites differ because they are filled with they type of content that is implied in the article itself and the individual descriptions of the content. The entire website is set up to promoting a growing tech/podcasting conference company and they happen to have a small resource section and it keeps getting submitted as the top external link in the Podcast article in wiki? Seems a bit fishy knowing the google ranking of this article if you do a search for "podcast".

    I also believe this is probably some devoted fan of the Podcast Brothers or a friend trying "help", I think its clear that this sort of wreckless reposting sans discussion is harmful and not in the spirit of wikipedia. I suggest ip#69.234.130.122 check out the Wikipedia:Spam policies before resubmitting this repeatedly rejected link. At least be a part of the discussion. Thanks 71.234.110.209 06:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

    Response from Tim Bourquin: I have added PodcastExpert.com myself on occasion although others have as well. The reason is that we get numerous calls every day about how to start or do a podcast. Nearly all of the links in the directory explain in detail aspects of podcasting including ID3 tags, encoding rates, etc. PodcastExpert.com does forward to a page on the Podcast Expo site, however the links are submitted by the community and we maintain it as a service to the community. As you can see there are no ads on any of the pages. Although it's obvious that the site resides on the Podcast Expo site, I believe it is no different then, say, Rob's Podcast411 link to directories of podcasts. I would be happy to re-write the description to be more neutral, but I think an article on podcasting that has no reference to any information about how one is recorded is much less helpful than one with it. I believe that when someone types in the word "podcasting" to Google, they are quite possibly looking for not only what it is, but how to produce one, and without a link such as Podcast Expert, they would have to continue their search. If I'm wrong here, I'll delete the link myself anytime I see it. But as far as I can tell, there is no other place right now that someone can go to and get all of these types of articles in one place. Tncnewmedia

    I really like and Respect both Tim and Emil Bourquin, I think they've been good innovators in monetizing the growing podcasting and portable media markets. I often listen to their podcast, which is dubbed btw, "The Official Expo Podcast".

    Here are the problems with what Tim supposedly wrote, I seriously have no way of knowing if he wrote that, but I'll act on good faith that he did to forward the discussion. He uses "we" a couple times so that clouds things a bit, I figure he means himself and Emil or those that make up his business/group. -He says they get lots of "calls" (actual phone calls?) about how to start a podcast, I think he could easily direct all of those people to better placs than wikipedia to learn about the mechanics and meta of starting a new podcast. As of today a Simple Google Search of "how to podcast"returns 196,000 results. Such reputable sites such as engadget and Podcastingnews.comas well as countless others make the information very freely available. As was stated before, per wiki policy, wikipedia is not a how to.

    -I don't like how it is stated that "it's obvious that the site resides on the Podcast Expo site, I believe it is no different then, say, Rob's Podcast411 link to directories of podcasts" because it's using Weasel_words to distort reality. Of course it's obvious what website we're all looking at, and no, it is nothing like Rob's Podcast411 link to that directory of directories because for starters, they are in different catagories of external links. Podcast411 is listed as a directory of directories. Which all others in that catagory are. The Podcastexpert site is listed as a general external link with a relatively persuasive and possibly not neutral description. The other huge difference is that on the Podcastexpert link, there are of course, multiple advertisements for the main product of the parent website, Newmediaexpo.com, formerly Portablemediaexpo.com. Whereas Rob from Podcast411 has dedicated that site to non-profit, community driven podcast resources mecca. Which it is. I don't know anyone in podcasting who hasn't been helped by Rob Walsch.

    So in closing, I think that, if Tim actually wrote that letter, he's pretty wrong, and the link should be cut. What I didn't elaborate on is that his explanation doesn't really change the fact that the link goes against the standards set for external links, and that, if you have a financial interest in and area as booming as podcasting is, you probably should not be submitting links to your Podcast Expo web site (under the guise of a resource) to the Podcast article on wikipedia. It's a definite conflict interest, but Tim is also an honest and noble guy, that's why (if he did write that) he was open enough to say that he submitted it. Lastly, this statement:

    '"But as far as I can tell, there is no other place right now that someone can go to and get all of these types of articles in one place."'

    I think we all know this is not true. The internet is full of resources such as forums and tutorials all freely availble to anyone who can google.

    Thanks for being part in the discussion, if I can- I'll try and make it out again this year to the expo, I'll actually try and tell others to go too so you won't feel bad about having your link dropped. ;) Take care- 71.234.110.209 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

    User:71.234.110.209 your argument fails on several points. If searching Google is all anyone needs in terms of finding resources, then why the need for this article at all? Searching Google would allow anyone to eventually find all of this information piece by piece and according to your argument, this is all anyone needs. Secondly, are you saying that no matter how valuable a resource might be, if the hosting entity is a for-profit enterprise, it is not worthy of being linked to? And finally, the majority of links in the PodcastExpert Directory are simply detailed explanations of terms and tools. I could simply re-write the description and it would fit the Wikipedia standards both in form and substance. I'm not going to re-submit the link, as it's not worth the time and effort to constantly fight one individual's personal views of what the Wikipedia should be. However, I am also not going to allow you to submit false arguments without a response as rational reasoning for deleting it either. All that said, let's get a beer at the Expo in September and discuss it.


    At the risk of stating the obvious, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are articles on one subject, often broken down into catagory. Sorry, but helping people learn how to podcast has nothing to do with an article on what podcasting is. Everything else is just trying to remind you of what wiki's standards for external links are. I urge you not to shoot the messenger ;) On the bright side, the community, literally hundreds and hundreds of unique users have, over time, have created what I consider to be a well constructed, very neutrally written article. As I said before, I'm a fan of the Podcast Bros and what their efforts have accomplished, especially how you've done it. Above board and open the whole way. Just like your willingness to discuss all of this, your good people. That's why I'll just repost some of wiki's policies and I think you'll see where they're coming from.

    Redirection Sites: "Do not use URL redirection sites in external links".Wikipedia:External_links#Redirection_sites Links Normally to be avoided: Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.(sorry but you're the top dog in podcasting conferences, the entire site is, of course devoted to promoting that, I'd be remissed not to at least raise an eyebrow of an external link to your site right?) Links mainly intended to promote a website.(itunes isn't here, neither is yahoo podcasts, school of podcasting, any even slightly for profit link is not at all listed in this article, I think that is a great thing) Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Links to be considered: A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. (what your linking to isn't by definition a web directory, the others, except for the Creative Commons link are all directories of directories, subcatagorized appropriately.) Advertising and conflicts of interest: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

    All in all it's not a big deal, but as recent as a few months ago, this article had a giant itunes logo and lots of commercial crap involved, many have tried to clean that up quite a bit. I think you guys have probably done more for the individual podcaster than itunes and God willing, I'll make it to the expo and introduce myself. Note to self, must call the DoubleTree. :)

    Happy New Years- 71.234.110.209 05:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] RE: 129.100.67.169 and the Voices.com link removed

    The above IP posted an external link to voices.com, I explained my edit in the notes. Voices.com is based out of London, Canada. Using a quick DNS IP search with that IP shows that the IP originates from, suprise, Canada [City: London, Ontario]. Testerer 02:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Podcasting Wikiproject

    I have proposed I Wikiproject for podcasting. If you're interested, make sure to add your name unser 'interested users'. The list is in alphabetical order, so jsut scroll down to see.Ganfon 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

    I think that is a great idea and would like to see that WikiProject come to life.Testerer 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    The project has since been started. Visit the project page if you're interested in helping the project. Ganfon 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Please read carefully, RE: Podcast Dirs in Ext Links

    For the longest time there's been some internal copy that has been helpful for people to avoid listing the hundreds upon hundreds of Podcasting Directories within this article that is merely intended to tell people about what podcasting is.

    Please do not add links to individual podcasts, podcast software, podcast cons or podcast directories (including Podcast Alley). Links should only be here if they help explain *what* podcasting is. External links should explain podcasting in more depth or from a different angle than Wikipedia can, they should not simply be a repeat of this article.

    I really agree with this statement, I think others do also, so I think it is fair to restucture the external links accordingly. I think it would be a big mess if there were tons of directories included in this article. itunes isn't listed, I think that is a good thing because you don't have to understand itunes to know what podcasting is and how it work, which this article explains pretty clearly. Any comments or concerns, would be glad to discuss it. It did recently strike me that someone may read the subsection of the external links titled Lists of Podcast Directories. This may be a bit confusing as it is intended to list actual lists of directories. Directories of Directories, if you will. Not links to one specific directory. I'll try and explain it better in subtext. Testerer 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    IF anyone has any thoughts on the OPML directories on this list- I'd be interested in talking. There are a few questions some might have as to their inclusion. I don't really think any of the links below should link to a page where someone sees an actual podcast listed, but if its opml and changes constantly then maybe. But if its heavy on the advertisements, should it be included? Any help would be great.Testerer 07:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    • I think that they should be mentioned, and that iTunes, perhaps, should be specificlly mentioned...but other than that I don't think we need to include a long list of directories. The article is intended, as mentioned above, to tell what podcasting is. Directories should be mentioned, so people know about them, but if they need to find them they can turn to Google, that's what it's there for. Ganfon 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Recent Edits

    This article is one that people love to vandalize and edit based on their feelings, and often emotions. One of the oldest arguments around the term "podcast" has been its Etymology. Someone recently deleted this line

    "The term "podcast" is derived from Apple Computer's mp3 playback device iPod."

    This is in my mind, slightly questionable, but considering popularization, it's probably true, and should be kept. That is why I undeleted it and included it in this edit. I also tried my best to come up with (hopefully ultimate) solution to please everyone, but still be true to both history and reality. I really wish there wasn't a drastic need for people to claim the etymology of this word, but it is very important to accurately reflect the history of the term, and thus, my edit falls back on both nature and the word "pod" itself, no doubt a reason Apple chose the term, it's previously understood meaning. I'd consider this to be a significant edit so I'd be interested in feedback. Have no problem with it's removal, but this always seems to be a hot issue related to this article, the name. Yeah, it's got something to do with the ipod, but because the word or notion of "pod" wasn't created by Apple, I think we have a duty to try and bridge the gap, if you will. So this was what was added.

    "However, known synonyms for the word pod are capsule, case, container, hull, husk, shell, and vessel.[1] A pod is obviously a container of some sort and the idea of broadcasting to a container or pod correctly the describes the process of podcasting.[2] More about the name itself can be found in the History of podcasting article."

    I really tried to reference this section, so much of this article isn't referenced at all, especially any connections to the ipod itself, or other origins. Any thoughts?Testerer 07:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

    Edit notes are not the same as fair discussion. More importantly, 3 referenced lines of content have been deleted without debate, and what has been inserted is not at all referenced. Please reference your changes, or at least take part in the discussion and provide counter points for your POV. I think the previous copy was more accurate in it's description of both podcasting and it's etymology. One cannot lazily site Ockhams Razor, btw- Ockham's razor has nothing to do with etymology. That is not a fair comparison. Many, many words have deep histories and often controversial origins. Sorry, you need to reference your material if you wish to delete my referenced material, or at least play a part in the process. Please leave a note on my user page or whatever you wish, but I don't think your edit does the concept and word itself, justice. This article is almost entirely unref'd that's a huge problem, there are lots of places to improve this article. Truthfully, iPods have nothing to do with podcasting, despite many a million spent on marketing, podcasting a method of syndication and a style or genre of amature internet radio. I'm not entirely happy with the edit I made, but its ref'd and pretty clearly describes why people "get" podcasting. Millions of people, who've never bought an iPod. Don't forget, people who come to this article often have no idea what podcasting is. There is already a giant misunderstanding that it requires and ipod, even an mp3 player. I think we owe it to all users to take the time to clearly explain everything- not limiting ourselves based on some cliche or brevity, we also, in my opinion, should be careful not to lead people to false conclusions, by not accurately detailing true etymology.

    You seriously think that Apple didn't use the word "Pod" because of what it meant before their device came along? No, obviously they picked it because they wanted universal understanding of concept. iTV, iPhone, iPod, all really easy for users to get. It's the Apple version of each, in the iPod's case, it's the Apple version of a container, and in reality, it is exactly, technically what the iPod is. To ignore the etymology of the word Pod itself is both hasty, and I'm afraid sloppy. Keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia with extended articles, this isn't a Dictionary. We owe it to users and readers and frankly, to ourselves to be accurate in everything we do, this is a hugely watched and vandalized article, we must be as clear as we can, and use the discussion pages intensely in order to follow the community driven wiki model. Arguably, the only thing that could be cut is this line

    "The term "podcast" is derived from Apple Inc.'s portable music player, the iPod"

    It's not referenced at all and is hugely impactful on the entire article. Aside from an unsubstatiated article in the Guardian, there has been no real reference that confirms this, yet I included it because it's probably true, and obviously part of the definition of podcasting that many people understand. I'd like to see every big statement in this wiki with a clear reference (or two) but they are not, my edits about the etymology are ref'd and I'm more than willing to discuss anything, with everyone. This is why I felt it ok to revert, yet keep the iPod mention as I did initially. Thanks. Testerer 07:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] new link

    hi, there is a new podcast portal, its for hebrew users and it will be nice to get a link to it too. the url is http://www.icast.co.il the name of the site is "icast the israeli podcast" 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)212.143.158.164 18:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Lotsa Edits, no discussion?

    I've seen lots of recent edits, major, unsubstantiated edits that I believe are not helpful to readers. Please take part of the discussion on the talk page. I'll revert most of the edits that seem arbitrary. Thanks for being a part of the process. As always this is a very popular, often disputed article, so I hope that everyone discusses all major changes thanks! Testerer 05:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thought I would add a couple of glaring examples of why I'll revert most of the recent, not discussed edits.

    • Ben Hammersley did not coin the term "podcasting" in 2004. Read way back on the discussion page for all of the talk on this. Also, you can't really link to a newspaper article citing itself as a good reference on this word's origin. It seems a bit circular to stand on it's own. I wonder if everyone knows that podcast.com was registered in late 2002, a while before the claims of coinage from the source at The Guardian.
    • "A podcast is a series of electronic media files," is perhaps the worst way I can think of to describe what a podcast actually is. The previous versions that stood the "test of time" were far more accurate. The fact that subscription has been a prominent point is important, but ultimately not critical to podcasting itself. Many, many people download directly or use a news reader and then pick and choose what media files are downloaded and when. To say they are "distributed periodically over the Internet by means of a Web feed." is lacking entirely in accuracy and definition.
    • The 2nd paragraph reads quite poorly also as it dumbs down the actual concept itself and makes no mention to the idea of broadcasting to a portable device. It speaks as if it must explain itself away from the iPod, this is why I feel early versions are superior, they were more universal in the explanation, they were also edited in great part by a group instead of just one person.
    • The Mechanics section is also troubled.

    "Podcasts are very simple in setup. The person who wants to distribute the media file, currently in most cases audio, places the file onto the internet. This file could be an MP3 audio file. People can either visit the site and click the download link, or the author can also place a feed link on their website, which is a file that tells programs where the media file is located."

    This seems very, very rudimentary and overly simplistic. Podcasts are not, in fact, very simple in setup. This paragraph is perhaps the best example of recent inaccuracies and over simplifications that have been changed in this article. No, podcasting isn't complicated it all- but must we lower ourselves to saying "Podcasts are a very simple setup." ?


    • Another problematic phrase:

    "This feed is what allows people to automatically know when new files can be downloaded, so they can subscribe to updates."

    Sorry, you subscribe to a feed usually so that it automatically downloads the media for you. I have no understanding of what the "so they can subscribe to updates" part means, it will be just one of many reversions. Aside from the fact that whoever edited the mechanics section put their version "on top" of the old version instead of actually improving what was there is very confusion to readers.

    In the mechanics subsection we have a great example of needless, ambiguous duplicity:

    "Podcasts are very simple in setup. The person who wants to distribute the media file, currently in most cases audio, places the file onto the internet. This file could be an MP3 audio file. People can either visit the site and click the download link, or the author can also place a feed link on their website, which is a file that tells programs where the media file is located."

    Uh... This file could be an MP3 Audio File?

    "The publish/subscribe model of podcasting is a version of push technology, in that the information provider chooses which files to offer in a feed and the subscriber chooses among available feed channels. While the user is not "pulling" individual files from the Web, there is a strong "pull" aspect in that the receiver is free to subscribe to (or unsubscribe from) a vast array of channels. Earlier Internet "push" services (e.g., PointCast) allowed a much more limited selection of content.

    Podcasting is an automatic mechanism whereby multimedia computer files are transferred from a server to a client, which pulls down XML files containing the Internet addresses of the media files. In general, these files contain audio or video, but also could be images, text, PDF, or any file type."

    Is it just me or are there like 3 definitions/explanations of podcasting mechanics? And yet these edits were made because someone felt this article is too long?

    OK enough said, on to revert to previous versions.

    Thanks. Testerer 06:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    Lastly, reversions have been made for what I believe is the betterment of this article. I also removed spam in external links in the process. Podcasting is not to be over simplified because someone wishes it's mechanics and how news readers work should be simplistic and elementary. Podcasting is pretty basic. I feel that the current article, which is simple a former version is superior in both it's referenced claims (many ref'd claims were removed and much new info was added without actually referencing anything) and it's universal, detailed explanation of this subject. I strongly encourage use of the discussion page as it is very important to arrive at changes based upon accuracy and not particularly on one person's POV. Testerer 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] One more example

    I realize I reverted some edits but wanted to give one more, symbolic example of the problem with the recent edits and "simplification".

    "A podcast is a media file, such as audio, that is distributed over the Internet, either through being downloaded like any other file, or to people subscribed to the podcast's feed."

    This isn't entirely true at all. What about people who download podcasts through Bit Torrent? This is an example of where attempts at simplifying something will often erase some of the most important details. The 2nd half is also a bit flawed. Subscription and downloading though important, are not ultimately linked. I subscribe to many podcasts and are alerted to when new enclosures are released on each feed, but as a user I get to decide which I download. Because I subscribe does not mean (or anyone else) downloads. Maybe this is the best thing about a podcast? Like a blog you can subscribe and know when something is new, but you can decide to download or not. Of course the automation from Feed -> Computer -> Mobile Device is important, but it is well explained and mentioned already. OK, that is enough for 1 night, I just wanted to give another explanation of why I reverted edits to help others understand. Testerer 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


    Though I like alot of the subtle improvements of this article over the last few weeks, I don't think we need 5 subsections in the see also section. Appcast and Torrentcast have no wiki articles at all. Screencast isn't defined in cunjunction with podcasting or RSS, Photocast links to iphoto. Hence I removed this data. Testerer 06:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Removed Name Controversy

    I removed the subsection that discussed the supposed "name controversy" but was only really substantiated by the opinions of one person. All of that Leo centric info can fairly be placed into his article but it really makes a mess of this article. Another thing, the subsection titled "Podcast trademark claims and disputes" is also quite uninformative and not really related to Podcasting itself. There might be a need for another article on Podcasting Trademark and Legal Issues, but should the main article, already a bit lengthy, grow with each bit of gossip and every rant that someone goes on. There was no name controversy and readers may not need to know (or care) about what companies allegedly received C&D's for trademark infringement. Any attempts at slimming down some of the excesses in this article would surely be a boon. Testerer 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


    OR- create an actual article on Netcast and stop the redirect to this article, describe in that article the history and propagation of the term. Testerer 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/d/Talk%7EPodcast_10f1.html"