Talk:Godcasting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Podcasting, 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!
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on October 1, 2005. The result of the discussion was delete. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Articles for deletion

This article was nominated for deletion on 070106. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents

[edit] Re-creation of article

Per discussion at WP:DRV, User:CentrOS supplied a BusinessWeek reference, which introduces new information that was not available during the original AfD discussion. As a result, the article has been restored with the reference properly added. It can of course be sent back to AfD for another round, or discussion can take place here whether to have it as its own article or as a subsection of Podcasting. howcheng {chat} 07:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Before you edit this page: Please note that User:CentrOS is in the process of building this page. He'd appreciate it if you did no major editing until Jan 14 2006. Please leave possible submissions in Talk for now. CentrOS 10:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your note from the article, as it is not appropriate to put in articlespace. FCYTravis 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User:CentrOS, Fred Phelps is one of the most productive and influential "godcasters". I don't care if you don't like him. This is not your personal page. Femmina 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Femmina, Fred Phelps is NOT "one of the most productive and influential "godcasters"". My comments left on deletion apply. This is not a podcast directory, and the addition of your link does nothing to add to the value of this article. CentrOS 18:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to tell for real, but when I look at the link, it at least appears to be trying to look like a podcast. Could we eliminate the conflict by perhaps not linking to ANY individual godcasts (in order to not be biased), but link to articles about godcasts instead? Friday (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue is that being a podcast is not the point. It is not helpful to an encyclopedia to list every defamatory and hateful extremist who claims to be part of something that is wholly rejected by the vast majority. The podcast Femmina linked to is not a Christian podcast. It is indeed anti-Christian, the very reason Femmina has linked to it, in order to make a mockery of the article. It should be noted Femmina voted against the existence of this article. And ftr, we do not link to any individual podcast. We have links to two podcast portals/directory's, both with notability, one being the first, and one being the biggest and fastest growing do to their quality. They are both worthy additions to the article. An individual podcast by a hateful extremist is not. CentrOS 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait a second. Godcast = podcast by a church. From a quick glance at the link in question, it does indeed fit that requirement. What's the problem now? Anyhow, just hurry up and delete this worthless article, lol godcast, I hope by 2007 nobody will have heard of this crap. --Timecop 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It might be worth nothing, that even though i am obviously a follower of Christ, I have added a comment which I think shows I am displaying some neutrality here: "It is worth noting that the majority of godcasts are created by smaller independent churches, perhaps because of the lack of a revenue stream from podcasting." Clearly I have no intention of trying to "gloss up" the article by including such a comment. CentrOS 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Femmina, I agree with CentrOS and would have removed the link myself if he hadn't got there first, so that's ownership accusations out of the way for now. Fred Phelps is a maniac and, while his antics may get him in the media on slow news days, he has close to zero actual influence. There's no justification for linking to it in this article. Also, I don't think you should mark an edit that you know will be disputed as 'minor'. (Agnostic, btw). --Last Malthusian 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Dear "follower of Christ": stop making false accusations. I'm not a vandal and I'm perfectly aware of the "3 reverts in 24 hours" rule. -- Femmina 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • CentrOS is a new editor and, while he could try a little harder to assume good faith, bear in mind that you have voted to delete this article and any editor might see a connection between that and adding a link to the most controversial Christian pastor in the West - twice. Can we stick to discussing the link? Do you dispute that this man has no real influence in the Christian world and is not relevant in any Christian-related article which isn't explictly about him or extremism? --Last Malthusian 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

s

[edit] This is not an article

This article spends its entire time telling us how important the term is, and doesn't tell us what it is. If we remove all of the justifications for the article existence, like how well-known the term is, we're left with about a one-sentence stub. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • People keep saying this (mostly in the current AfD), and I don't buy it. At all. It gives us an example of early use, it tells us what sort of people use podcasts, it tells us that the Pope has one (and we all know how senile German priests are incredibly keen on neologistic technofads). Oh, and it tells you what it is (first sentence). And, admittedly, it has a paragraph about its growing popularity, but that seems entirely relevant when we're talking about something that has, er, growing popularity. If you think that paragraph has undue weight, fix it. I'm an anticlericalist and hate the blogging/podcasting fad, but I can see perfectly well this is a valid subject, a well researched and referenced article, and this despite having very few helpful contributions except from one new editor. --Malthusian (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's clean it up

Created a separate section for the etamology and moved the appropriate text.

  • Religious enterprise has traditionally taken advantage of new media techniques, starting with stone tablets, Papyrus, the Gutenberg printing press in the 1450s, followed by radio, television, and now the Internet. In printing in particular, the religion genre is second only to works of fiction.

Trimmed this. A fine thought for a different article, although I think the most reliable follower of new media is an even older profession.

Tried to make this sound more encyclopedic.

  • his could possibly be contributed to the lack of a viable revenue stream from podcasting.

Speculation - chopped it.

  • The podcasts range in quality from amateurish to programs created in professional recording studios.

As with any podcast.

  • Apple's iTunes Music Store Podcast Directory reveals that godcasting is the fastest growing and largest existing genre, with over 2,000 entries as of January 2006. Godcasting portal God's iPod reports over 3000 daily subscribers, with 35% growth from month to month. Dean Tsouvalas, writer of the Lycos 50, reports that during the month of December 2005, searches for Godcasts rose over 355%.

Can we just say that Godcasting is growing rapidly? (As with podcasting in general.)

  • He also notes that searches for Godcasts were as popular as hit TV shows and famous catwalk models. The Guardian says, "religious and spiritually themed podcasts" - have become "the most popular use of the new online technology since it debuted less than a year ago".

Most popular? I bet I can think of at least one more popular use. And it's vague. As popular as hit tv shows is not an encyclopedic measure.

Regard, Ben Aveling 11:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Well actually Ben there IS no more popular use. but you conveniently delete all the stats and citations that factually prove this with empirical data, not opinion. I can't be bothered undoing your samurai "editing" here. You've reduced an encyclopedic article that had worth down to something a dictionary might have. Well done. CentrOS 01:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The most popular use of any new media has always been p0rn, and probably always will be. One of the facts I removed was that godcasting is as popular as supermodels. But when I followed the link, it didn't say that - it said Naomi Cambell. ie. all of godcasting is about as popular as one supermodel. And these things change. The main thing an encyclopedia should talk about is the thing itself. Ben Aveling 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry Ben, but you're just plain wrong. The most popular use of any new media is not porn, it is religion. Every Sunday over one hundred thousand video recordings of Church messages are recorded and made available for sale, positively dwarfing porn. The same goes for most other forms of media, INCLUDING podcasting. There is very little porn podcasting in fact. CentrOS 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And Ben, if you're not sure of something, it doesn't mean you have to make the rest of the world unsure of it also. Craig Patchett was the first to use the term Godcast. If you can't be bothered to perform dutiable research to conclude otherwise, don't lower the authoritativeness of the Wikipedia by reducing a fact to a maybe. CentrOS 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that we can't prove who used the term first - it was probably verbal, and probably not documented. That's the nature of words. All we can say is that the first we know of is Craig, if it adds anything to anyone's undertstanding of the neologism? Ben Aveling 03:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-pah-gann-dah!!!

That's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.182.183.193 (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC).