Talk:Justin.tv

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!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Deletion

I am tired of having to delete this article. Please show that the subject is notable so that the article does not qualify for a speedy deletion. Please see WP:WEB for information on how to do this. Additionally, you will need to work on the article either on this page or in userspace before I will again remove protection. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

http://cbs5.com/video/?id=21933@kpix.dayport.com

This site is gaining a lot of attention, and brings up significant privacy and ethical issues. I was really surprised to see wikipedia has no article for this.

[edit] Re: Deletion

I don't understand why this article continues to be deleted IMO it was a legitimate article about a legitimate website, this article shouldnt be treated any differently from other articles like Fatwallet, DSLReports, Slashdot, DemocraticUnderground. Digg, Freerepublic, Shoutcast, Suprnova and many other sites featured on wikipedia.

[edit] Deletion?

This site has been featured in all sorts of mainstream media - AP wire, new york times (I believe). It has been the buzz of the podcasting and tech community for a while now. It has been discussed in length on TwiT, etc etc etc. How much more legitimacy is needed here? Why is there no page?

[edit] Re: Deletion

Here is an AP/Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701220.html

I see no reason why you continue to block this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiGlory (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Deletion

You know what's funny? I think Chris Griswold has something against the guys at Justin.tv. He's marked their other company, Kiko, for deletion too.

The completely bullshit thing about all of this, is that the damned Rules of Aquisition from Star Trek are on wikipedia and not considered TRIVIAL, yet Justin.tv, the first Web cam to go mobile is considered too trivial despite getting major press since before the site launched. This is another reason why wikipedia shouldn't allow nazi admins like Chris Griswold to run completely unchecked on the site.

When was the last time the Associated Press covered Rules of Aquisition?

How are the rules of Aquisition more trivial than this? They're both equally important.

Write an article that explains that the subject is notable or stop whining. Three times the article was deleted because it could have been anything. I provided a link to information on how to do this. If anyone wants to work on this article and wants my help, I will be happy to provide it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This guy was on numerous national (USA) broadcasts within the past week. G4TV's Attack of the Show and NBC's (Major network.. hello?) The Today Show.

[edit] Suggested page content

Justin.tv is a website created by the ex-founders of the calendaring website Kiko.com. Using a mobile webcam attached to the head of Justin Kan, one of the founders, the website streams continuous live video and audio of what he is seeing and hearing. The site went live at midnight on March 19th 2007 and it is stated on the site that Justin will wear the camera "24 hours a day, 7 days a week."[1] There have been previous experiments with 24/7 live streaming via the internet, DotComGuy and JenniCam for example, but Justin.tv is notable because Justin is completely mobile. Using 4 wireless EV-DO networking cards and a laptop in a backpack[2] the video is streamed from wherever Justin is currently located. The site has been compared to "Edtv" or "The Truman Show."[3]

[edit] Talk page cleanup?

Now that this article has established itself and should no longer be in danger of deletion, perhaps it's time to clean up all the "deletion" "deletion" "deletion" talk entries? Anyone, anyone? --67.188.0.96 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weirder than weird

The article now includes reference to the article itself? I'm not suggesting the entries aren't worthy; rather, I'm just pointing out how strange it is to have a wikipedia article that is in part about itself. That said, I've watched justin.tv and seen Justin request that users edit the article in certain ways--which invariably happens within minutes. Sometimes his suggestions are helpful, but isn't it getting much too close for comfort to have the subject of the article dictate the article's content? And after that, entries to the article are made regarding entries to the article? My head is spinning. --67.188.0.96 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] References

  1. ^ Justin.tv website
  2. ^ TechCrunch announcement of the Justin.tv launch
  3. ^ Associated Press article on Justin.tv in the Washington Post
  • At last, a decent start that won't be deleted within 5 seconds. As soon as the media does something on this, there'll be an article for sure. Thanks, Zadernet 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the media already has. The references below show a Washington Post article as well as a Techcrunch posting, and here is a San Francisco Chronicle article And65 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Mentioned on This Week in Tech... twit.tv or Diggnation; I'm not totally sure, but definitely one of the above. I believe TWiT. --Auto(talk / contribs) 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV and relevancy

Hey, this is Emmett from the staff of Justin.TV. I don't mind the criticisms about it not being 24/7 (although it seems very POV and should probably from a source, rather than editorializing by whoever wrote it). However, I'm annoyed about the Anne Curry "bitch" comment inclusion. It's very POV, not cited, and it was in no way a significant event in the history of Justin.TV. It's true, but it was muttered under his breath after a hostile interview, and hasn't been featured in any significant press I know of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eshear (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

You're right; I've removed the section. This article may in the future have many edits based purely on Justin's video feed, but edits based only on that feed should be considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, since they require the editor's interpretation. Also, I suggest that you and the rest of the staff, if you haven't already, become familiar with the conflict of interest and autobiography guidelines. --Brandon Dilbeck 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I just noticed that there are numerous external links for this article, most of which seem to be various news articles. Others are interviews. Should we keep them all, or only keep the ones that seem more note-worthy? Yavoh 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There should not be so many links. Wikipedia is not a link repository. If you'd like to check through them, please go ahead and remove all but the most important and relevant links. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through and left only the more noteworthy links. I left the cleanup tag in, however, as there may be some disagreement. Yavoh 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advert/refimprove tags

A few points to consider:

  • Citation #2 links to Justin.tv; where exactly is this information? Is there a secondary source available instead?
  • "Justin.tv has been compared to Edtv, Being John Malkovich and The Truman Show." - needs a citation
  • The list of similar projects is original research. Some of these could be appended under a "See also" heading.
  • The list of channels replete with in-line links needs to go, there's no reason to advertise them by upping their googlerank and offering free traffic.
  • The list of Television appearances may help substantiate the article in case of an AfD, but it adds no useful information.
  • (It may seem from the above that I really don't like lists, it's rather that I think there should be a pragmatic basis for including them.) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)