Talk:Podcasting/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: John Cranmer. "Here Comes Pod", Gay Times, May 17, 2005.

Contents

Cited in Supreme Court brief

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


Definition and linkspam

I tried to rework the definition, since I felt it was too vague and hard to understand. I'm not 100% satisfied with what I've got; it feels too wordy. I'd also like to include some reference to *how* people subscribe to podcasts.

How about "Podcasting is multimedia blogging"? That's what I found it to be, and I wish the wikipedia article told me right away.

Also, I deleted some linkspam, and noticed the number of links to podcasting tutorials and such is growing. I favor deleting those along with the podcast directories and such, since they don't help to explain what podcasting is, but what do you all think?

I agree WRT linkspam. To be fair, the links should stay as on-point as possible, so basically delete almost all of the crazy links. —BenFrantzDale 20:15, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


Uh, so I did a couple of edits

...and ended up changing half the page. I think this better conveys what podcasting is and how it works. I've seen this article referenced a number of times online, so I tried to write it for a person who doesn't know much about blogging or RSS or MP3s and such. --Screetchy cello 23:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I say that a podcaster is NOT one who posts downloadable MP3 files on the web. I say that a podcaster is someone who owns a device capable of receiving audio material downloads, and they are tired of commercially sponsored broadcast crap & looking for alternative listening material. They surf the web for new sources of this material. Once found, they place a hook in these locations to allow future material to be reeled into their listening devices. The casting activity has less relation to the process of posting files, and more relation to search, find, retreive process. --RRLedford@gmail.com
But that isn't how the term is used. It's like saying that broadcasting is actually radio listening. Your describing the wrong end of the transaction. "podcasting" is the side of the transaction that makes the MP3 files conveniently available, NOT the activity on the listeners side. --Clifdavis 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is correct - the previous poster has it backwards. Podcasting is creating files and making them available for downloading/RSS. --DavidWBrooks 12:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Reverted edits by anon editors

I wanted to explain why I reverted the last couple of changes, especially to the anon user 65.30.41.166. Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm, but an encyclopedia. If people want to know how to do podcasting, they can google for that and get much better results. So while that site might be helpful, it doesn't belong in this particular article. Links should help explain what podcasting is, not where to get them or how to do it. Thanks.

Also, I kind of liked the History section, and was sad to see it blanked. It's a little shaggy, but I thought it was informative. So I put it back. --Screetchy cello 22:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your judgement of my link. Our Article on 'How to Explain Podcasting to the Flashing 12' is still one of the best non-technical explanations of podcasting out there. How to Explain...
Removing that link is a detriment to the viewers of this site. My site is completly commercial free. Yes I have a directory and How to's. But I also have one of the best explanations for the non-techies on the web for Podcasting.
So I am adding a link just to the Flashing 12 Article. --Rob @ Podcast411
I disagree with your judgement of WP guidelines. From the Wikipedia:External Links page, "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." Furthermore, the WP article is a better explaination that this link, so the link is unnecessary. --Adm58 00:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


It's the RSS

It's become the consensus among podcasters that the term "podcasting" applies only to audio content delivered automatically through the RSS protocol. Other online audio delivered through standard web pages do not fit this term. Just thought I'd put that up so everybody's clear on it. --Adm58 00:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The key part is automated download, and non-computer playback. RSS is a means to this end, but other ways are possible too. --Kevin Marks 07:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Radio stations section

This is becoming sort of a linkfarm and it isn't very relevant information. I think I might try to broaden it to mention some commercial uses of podcasting, but I don't believe we need to include a bunch of external links. Any thoughts? --Adm58 18:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


Curious about what should (and should not) get included.

Sorry for (initially) jumping in and editing this page before reading the discussion. I won't let it happen again.

Anyway, I'm just curious why the additional content I added about Podcasting being publicised by more mainstream media following the pope's death was removed. O.K. Presumably most of the people reading this listen to at least one podcast on a regular basis, but many people I know (including some seriously tech-savvy ones) didn't know about podcasting until it was mentioned in the news. Only time will tell, but I can't help wondering if some podcast content (such as the one I mentioned) will eventually become as historically significant as the recording made when the Hindenberg went down. --RichardJFoster 13:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it's a judgement call - all of wikipedia is a judgement call! - but in a fast-developing area like podcasting, there are new/expanded mentions in the media almost every week. Articles can't be an exhaustive history of every development in a field or they would become so massive that nobody could read them. If you look up higher in this Talk area, you'll see a whole bunch of media mentions that were removed a while back - back when new "what is podcasting" articles cropped up all the time. --DavidWBrooks 13:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I agree that it is not appropriate to mention every new reference in the news. I personally considered the one I added appropriate because it was (to the best of my knowledge) the first "historically significant" (but not computer related) event captured in a podcast. Of course if anyone else knows otherwise, that event would/should take priority.
Argh! it appears that bug is back where I get logged out without warning. :-( Updated signature manually --RichardJFoster 13:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who removed it because I felt the article was getting sidetracked with too much niche information. As a general rule, we want to avoid specific mentions of podcasts and we want to avoid too many external links. The article should be as straightforward and as self-contained as possible. Please continue to post any comments and questions on the talk page, and I welcome questions on my own talk page as well. --Adm58 15:07, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that niche information may not add much to the article, and there is certainly no guarantee that the podcasts of John Paul II's funeral and the election of Benedict XVI will become historically significant. Perhaps the information should be added back in only when and if they do. --RichardJFoster 15:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Podcasts

Do we break off some of the (former) external links into a new List of Podcasts article? --Mydotnet 13:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd vote no, because that list would change so much that we'd always be behind. Plus, there are plenty of podcast directories on the Web. --DavidWBrooks 15:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


Deleted material

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


Listing Podcasting sites

Please do not add links to individual podcasts, podcast software, podcast cons or to podcast directories (including Podcast Alley). Links should only be here if they help explain *what* podcasting is.

Why is this? What about listing the iPodder.org directory? --Anonymous
Because linking to a site containing podcasts is NPOV- we could never get a fair representation, and even if we could, it is an open question whether that would be encyclopedic. See too up in the discussions: I also wonder why iPodder.org gets a link when it clearly has a corporation profiting behind it. --MasterMaq 07:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC). Does that sound more than a little POV now, adding Ipodder? Hope that answers your questions. --maru 15:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


Disgreement with time-shifted attribute

In the article podcasts are described as time-shifted. This seems rather incorrect.

Unlike time-shifted material, podcasts cannot be listened to while the content is produced, which makes podcasts more akin to recordings then to time-shifted content.

The RSS and auto-sync provide a new, unique way to publish audible digital content. The combination of all three rightfully warrants a new name for what would typically be referred to as a recording.

Referring to podcasts as time-shifted seems like an attempt to increase the “coolness” factor of the term. --Anonymous

No; entirely correct- podcasting is essentially, fundamentally, asynchronous- timeshifted in other words. The recipient chooses when to listen, not the sender. And your point about production does not hold- just about everything on TV cannot be watched when being produced, and are, like podcasting, sent and with vcrs, received asynchronously/timeshifted, so why then you not cavil about the term's application to TV and VCR's and such, which originated the very term? --maru 14:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
"..just about everything on TV cannot be watched when being produced..." True, which is why TV shows aren't hardly ever referred to as "time-shifted," but rather "recorded." In the old days when live TV's (more often live radio's) signal was purposefully thirty seconds or so behind the actual event (censor catch), it was referred to it as "delayed" broadcast, i.e., time-shifted. The specific distinction between 'time-shifted' vs. 'recorded' does seem to be related to Can You Tap In During The Production (even with a lag), and in that respect, podcasts appear to be recorded rather than time-shifted. Otherwise, it is a Webcast. --Another anonymous :::00:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Winer

Who or what is Winer? The word seems to be used without introduction.

Ooops: somebody (maybe me) got overly enthusiastic in past editing. It's fixed now. - DavidWBrooks 16:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


Radio stations

The portion of the article about U.S. radio stations podcasting some of their broadcasts has been condensed because the list was getting so long - and it's no longer notable when a US station does it. Aside from what appears (unless somebody corrects us) to be the first such radio podcast, which is listed, only really unusual situations such as KYOU (which broadcasts podcasts, instead of the other way around) deserve to be listed separately any more, IMHO. --DavidWBrooks 14:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This section is kind of a mess; we need to condense it into some kind of logical summary. It's a jumbled linkfarm type thing at the moment. Please take a crack at it if anyone is willing. --Adm58 14:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
It is a link farm, and I don't think it should be that way. I think that section should be more of a "informational" section. Like stating that Rush is planning on turning his radio show into a podcast... but not providing a link to downloading it. Because if we start doing that (as it sort of is right now), then why not have a list of pod casts and podcast software listed too? --Noah 19:51, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I tried trimming, combining a bit. --DavidWBrooks 21:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Why is this section even in this article? Total waste of space IMHO --podCast411 20:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not very fond of it either but I don't think people would react kindly if I just deleted it.  :) Adm58 00:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I just think the whole addition of Radio Stations takes away from Podcasting in general - I am going to delete it. --podCast411 20:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
A little over-enthusiastic, I think - I undeleted it, then did more trimming. Perhaps the time has come to collapse it all into a couple of paragraphs without separate country mentions. - DavidWBrooks 18:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I was being agressive. I just do not believe the whole issue of Radio Stations has any place on this page any more then specific podcasts do. As a matter of fact as a podcaster I am offended by them. Podcasting was started by people looking for something other than radio now that radio stations are taking pre-packaged shows and converting them to an MP3 and then having an RSS link to them does not make them true podcasts. Again I am going to delete that section. I see no value in it and it only muddies the waters for those that come to this page. --podCast411 15:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
In it's current version, I agree with podCast411. The information presented is mostly irrelevant. I'd be more interested in seeing a section on how podcasting has influenced radio; Adam Curry's show for example. It is my opinion that this section stay deleted. Adm58 22:15, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

'Software' section removed?

Just thought I'd point out that Australian radio station Triple J has a couple of links to this page on their podcast page at http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/listen/podcast.htm . However one of the links points to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting#Software , a section that doesn't exist at the moment.

Not being a frequent editor of this page, I thought I might leave it to someone more involved with this article to restore the 'Software' section if they see fit? -- Chuq 07:02, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

    • Some people think that listing software used for podcasts is a POV thing, and can't be fair to everyone. I don't think there are "that" many podcast software programs out there, so we could include them "all". My vote is to re-add the various podcasting softwares that are out there. Noah 08:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
It's not just that it's NPOV, it's that it is non-encyclopedia-ic. (I never know how to spell that word). Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide or a Web-link guide - that's why we don't, say, list every publisher who prints a version of an out-of-copyright book in an article about that book, or list every manufacturer of ski equipment rented at a particular ski area, or list every interstate leading into Chicago in that city's article, etc. It's incredibly easy for people interested in finding pod software to Google it; wikipedia isn't supposed to be a search replacement. As for the site with the wrong link, they need to update their links more often. - DavidWBrooks 13:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
To resolve this problem on the News aggregator page, I just made a separate List of news aggregators page. It cut down on spam on the News aggregator page entirely and while it may not be entirely NPoV or encyclopedic, it isn't useless to have that list of programs. —BenFrantzDale 19:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Good idea! - DavidWBrooks 20:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
We should do the same for this section. Add a "see also" link to the List of Podcasts.. and let people add stuff to that page instead of this page. There could even be a "radio broadcast" section. Noah 11:59, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Other uses

I removed this because it is inaccurate and it repeats information from another page. The info is wrong because KFI doesn't distribute podcasts, Leo is permitted to do that by the station on his own time and expense. If we insist on having this tangent niche info in the article, can we use some that is accurate? Adm58 17:43, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, excellent - an editor with knowledge that can be used to improve an article, instead of just throwing stuff out. I look forward to seeing it incorporated it in the story. Personally, while it's tangential I don't think it's irrelevant, at least not at this point. In six months or a year, when most radio stations automatically podcast programs, then it probably will be. - DavidWBrooks 18:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Now there seem to be two entries claiming to be "first" broadcast radio podcasts. I noticed when I added a third early starter (KOMO). I miss having some reference to the early NPR syndicated program podcasts, including "On the Media" (WNYC) and "Morning Stories" (WGBH), but I see from earlier discussion there's some reorganization of station links in process. Adoption by a national network like the BBC also seems significant. Limbaugh's reference should say why it's there; otherwise just another program. BobStepno 01:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I'm adding a NPOV banner as I think compared to older archives http://web.archive.org/web/20041130005814/ this article shows bias and factual innaccuracy - I'm not sure me just editing it would work; since my changes would get reverted. I'm an early podcaster and I don't recognise the facts and all the links disappearing, apart from the 2 one of which is a commercial entity - there seems to be a bias to radio stations and commercial entities. And Dave Winer getting edited out completely? What's with that?

iPodder is not the only directory site - you've got to mention PodCastAlley and the rest, or none. And don't link to Apple - they were nothing to do with the direction or invention of podcasting until very recently (iTunes 4.9). timbearcub

Ah I can see Dave Winer's been added back in now - but will it stay? I still stick by my general point about links - iPodder is not an independent site as it's run by Adam Curry, and not everyone uses it (?) - either add all the directories, or none...and I think some of the useful/historical links could come back? It seems very one-sided...I can see you've decided to take the links out for cleanness, but the current article gives the impression that podcasting is just Adam Curry and Apple?timbearcub
A very small point, timbearcub - if you sign with ~~~~ (four tildes, not just three) it will put the date and time of your post, which makes it easier on Talk pages to keep track of who said what when. Currently, a person following the Talk link from the NPOV bug wouldn't know whether your above comment was made yesterday and is still relevant, or two months ago and has been superceded by events.
Having said that, I think the remove-the-ipodder-link contingent has made a good case. - DavidWBrooks 20:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope the mentions of Winer, Lydon, Hammersley and Curry stay put and that people don't waste time on "podfather" wars. Winer and Hammersley apparently have a long-standing unharmonious relationship, and I suspect partisans of one or the other have been deleting mention of whichever guy they think is a dork. And now Winer and Curry appear to have split over Curry's podcast-related commercial ventures. When it comes to podcasting, Winer deserves credit for adding the enclosure element to his flavor of RSS and Userland Radio, encouraging Curry's early experiments with it, then setting up a feed for Lydon, which helped inspire Curry's early Applescripts to get MP3s into his iPod. This is well documented in major newspaper and magazine articles, as well as the trail of blog posts and podcasts still online. Meanwhile Hammersley really did put the word "podcasting" in circulation. I think Winer and Curry talked about it in one of their early "Trade Secrets" podcasts last year. BobStepno 01:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks David - and the entry is looking a lot fairer now - noting the enmity and some of the issues around that; rather than just naming one person, it's now naming them all. Much better. The problem with innovations like this is that they are part incremental; part liguistics and marketing, and are collaborative - but the media likes a shorthand and just wants one person for their snappy sound bytes! timbearcub 15:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Downes Contribution

I have (again) added the Stephen Downes contribution of Ed Radio. This application clearly predated other inventions of the concepts, was the first to use RSS explicitly for the aggregation and distribution of MP3. This is important, because it makes it clear that the later Winer-Curry invention was restricted to the uploading of aggregated RSS files to iPods, and not the wider innovation of using RSS to aggregate and distribute RSS feeds. It may or may not have been an influence on subsequent developments (it is certainly not referenced). Other people have wailed a lot about being expunged from history; I see no reason why I should do so silently.-- Stephen Downes

More a name than an invention

This talk of Podcasting as something new strikes me as odd. Only the name is really new. For example the company audible.com has been selling subscriptions to audio (NPR and audio books mostly) to be downloaded into portable music players for many years prior to the dates in any of the proposed histories.

Internet Talk Radio (1993) was multicast, but then also put up for regular ftp download. People didn't have music players, and CD burners cost $3,000 so nobody put these things into personal players.

In fact, distinguishing podcasting from streaming goes backwards. Producing audio into a file for later download was what came first, and was too slow on the old internet. It was because this took too long to give you the first audio that streaming audio was developed, first on the mbone, later in private streams, which led to the success of the Real Audio company and others.

  • No, streaming is a technological dead end, applying a telephony mindset to a data transfer problem. If you transfer files in sequential order you can play them from the beginning if you have sufficient bandwidth; if not you wait. With streaming you need sufficient bandwidth, or you get a garbled result.Kevin Marks

Subscribing to audio files for automatic download goes even further back, however. There are many USENET newsgroups devoted to binaries, including audio files, which date back to the 80s. Of course, many of the contributions there were copyright violations.

Unlike RSS "subscriptions" which kludge subscription through polling, USENET (and mailing lists) offered true subscription. You subscribed to a group and items were sent to your machine when they were generated, not when you went to ask for something new.

Again, nobody had digital music players in those days so you might not identify it as identical to the way people are defining podcasting, but the concept of subscribing to audio files over the internet with automatic delivery goes back a long, long time before what is now getting called podcasting.

a little bit of clarity

I realise that this page is currently being contested, but can i just give my opinion as someone who is not involved in the editing of this page. I came here to find out more about podcasting, and i expected the article to mention how podcasts can be made, that means a section on software. I see from above that the software section was removed, please put it back in cause wikipedia is the first place i look for an answer, and this page didnt answer it. The bellman 02:10, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide, if that's what you're looking for. There are tons of such guides on the Web, though - a quick Google will find scads. - DavidWBrooks 12:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree about not turning an encyclopedia into a how-to manual, but I think The Bellman's point on readers' needs is a good one. Since we are documenting the history of this technology (or meme or whatever it is), documenting how it *spread* seems appropriate. I don't have time to determine which "how-to" came first, but the one linked below was one of the first detailed ones I bookmarked. So, inspired by David, I'll add this to the end of the history section. Perhaps it belongs elsewhere. Do with it as you Wikili see fit:
By October, 2004, detailed "how-to podcast" articles (early example) had begun to appear online. By mid-June, 2005, a Google search for "'how to' +podcast" returned 1,260,000 hits. BobStepno 21:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, David... Didn't see your earlier note about Google search strings. Other Uses fix looks OK too, with station names moved to their own page.BobStepno 04:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV note

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/d/Talk%7EPodcasting_Archive_2_ded1.html"