Talk:Rocketboom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] Financing

Where does rocketboom get its financing from? I think it'd be helpful to say. Appart from the 5 ads that were featured over a week, there is no advertising in the pages or anything. That bandwith must cost a lot of money.

[edit] Amanda leaves Rocketboom

http://amandaunboomed.blogspot.com/2006/07/amanda-unboomed_05.html

It sounds as if she was forced out? Anyway, the article needs editing and I have no idea how to do so. Just an FYI.

More like irreconcilable differences. They both tried very hard over the last two weeks to come to a resolution, but it just didn't work out. Amanda still has partial ownership of the Rocketboom franchise, but she'll no longer be serving as host, and she's relocating to LA. I'm sure Amanda and Andrew will have more to say about this publicly in the coming days. Acarvin 18:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the text that was just posted on the Rocketboom homepage:

ROCKETBOOM ANNOUNCEMENT:

Amanda Congdon has decided to move to L.A. to pursue opportunities that have arisen for her in Hollywood.

We wanted to meet her request to move production out to L.A., however, we are a small company and have not been able to figure out a way to make it work, financially and in many other ways at this time. So sadly we bid Amanda adieu and wish her all the best.

Rocketboom goes on.

Andrew Baron, the founder and creator of Rocketboom, will stay with the company in New York and will continue to produce and direct the show. We are in the daunting process of recruiting a replacement for Amanda.

While Amanda will be sorely missed, we have big plans for Rocketboom and are determined to make the show better than ever.

After Field Week and a week on hiatus, we know that you are hungry for the news! Rocketboom will be back with a news episode and an interim host this MONDAY, JULY 10.

Acarvin 23:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another post over at http://amandaunboomed.blogspot.com/ shows that what was posted over at Rocketboom's website might not be totally accurate. Either she's lying, or he's trying to spin things to his favor. -- Hellmark 07:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Citations and references added. Pepso 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congdon to merge

Both of these articles are rather short and could be combined. --TrevorLSciAct 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Definately merge. Congdon isn't notable on her own. --Strothra 00:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that. I think a good article is possible on Congdon, but what's there now is centered around Rocketboom, so there's no reason to not combine it here. ScottW 01:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Semantically, a person is a person is a person. Gordo 07:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that 95% of Congdon's fame is due to Rocketboom, and that her information should be merged into this article. Courtarro 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but with her no longer being on Rocketboom, in a way that is kinda silly. If she does something notable later on, would that mean that her article would have to be split back off? -- Hellmark 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hellmark. Now that Amanda has 'left' RocketBoom, there is no point merging the articles. Is there any way that we can remove the statement that says this at the top of the artcle? -- Sjetha 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compare to Drudge

Note that Matt Drudge and Drudge Report get two separate pages. Same deal with Congdon. Pepso 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It might be better to not compare to Drudge. Two reasons: First, if one topic is covered a particular way, and that way is wrong, then that doesn't make other topics covered the same way more right. Second, there is some degree of separation between the article on Matt Drudge and the article on the Drudge report, although, some of the information in Drudge could certainly be merged. In any case, that doesn't make that much of a difference here. The question is whether the Amanda Congdon article stands apart from Rocketboom.
As I stated in my previous comment, I think there is potential for a good article for Congdon. Aside from the coverage she's received from Rocketboom, she shows up a lot as an important figure in video blogging in general (let's put aside for a moment the appearances on The Restaurant--trust me, that won't help). However, this isn't a discussion of deletion of the Congdon article; instead, it's a discussion of merging the article with Rocketboom. What is in the article now that can't be covered under Rocketboom? Until something more is there, I don't feel it's a bad thing for these two articles to be merged. If a person searches for Amanda Congdon, they'll find Rocketboom. Currently, this will give them roughly the same information. ScottW 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Merge

The effort to merge is the last gasp of those who have tried to delete Gordo 07:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please note that I supported keeping the Rocketboom article (and Andrew Baron). My support for merging these two articles is based on the current content of the Congdon article. If there was substantial information outside the scope of the Rocketboom article, my opinion on merging might be different. ScottW 13:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I love Amanda and rocket boom but i think both are short articles and it would just make more sense, at least for now. --TrevorLSciAct 19:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • She should remain on her own. She's done other things besides Rocketboom. Skeeter451
  • Amanda should not be merged into the RocketBoom article. She is now no longer involved in Rocketboom. Mark

[edit] Review?

I have just read both articles and they are very different. The overlap is minimal. Do not merge; expand each article instead! Gordo 08:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be but that does not change the fact that most of the article is about Rocketboom. Amanda is stated 6 times and Rocketboom 8, that really says something. --TrevorLSciAct 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It says something, but what? Could you be more clear? Pepso 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, i can see that she will probably eventually need her own page--but at the moment she is mostly Rocketboom, then again characters in TV shows get their own pages so i guess she should too. I also can't stress enough that I love both Amanda and Rocketboom--I watch it everyday. I just thought that merging would make more sense. I really don't feel that strongly about it and over the next few days I'll expand this article a little, maybe organize it a little, then maybe it will at least look like she deserves her own article; which she will eventually.

[edit] Do Not Merge - Amanda Unboomed

Amanda may no longer be part of Rocketboom.

http://amandaunboomed.blogspot.com/2006/07/amanda-unboomed_05.html

Wow, that's more than a little surprising. But yeah, I agree that make a merge less useful. The Congdon article is going to need a lot of work though. ScottW 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Concidering the last week have not included her at all, and her statement that she isn't on anymore, I'd say its more likely that she definitely isn't on Rocketboom anymore, instead of just "may not be" -- Hellmark 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Jimbo pic

The image in the article of Jimbo being interviewed: Is that too self-referential? youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. WP:SELF says to avoid referring to the fact that the reader is reading a wikipedia article, using wiki jargon, or linking to the wikipedia namespace from articles, because it reduces the text's exportability and distracts from the topic. It doesn't mean that you can't acknowledge the existence of wikipedia, but it does mean that you shouldn't do it in a way that would be inappropriate if the article were not on wikiepdia. So I think the Jimbo picture is kind of toeing the line, since a non-wikipedia editor might have picked a different photo, but it wouldn't be jarring if you were reading it on a mirror site like about.com. -- Vary | Talk 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Front section

Do we all agree that the front portion is a bit too long for this article? I'm going to try to make each one into small section, but help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Jared A. Hunt 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'm changing the secion title from 'Introduction' to 'Format', as the bit above the table of contents is usually referred to as the intro. -- Vary | Talk 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Great. I was just wondering why we have so many irrelavant links in "External links". I think we should sort through them, because many of them, I couldn't figure out why they are there. -- Jared A. Hunt 12:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina

The link to the page from where there is a link to the Katrina video http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2005/09/rb_05_sep_01.html was under references till 13th of July it was then moved to a paragraph called "watch", what I don't really get. Why do we want to make anybody watch the episode, if he isn't interested. Anyways, that paragraph was deleted on 25th of July. Some links where moved. The Katrina link wasn't.

The text still states that the you'd find a link to the episode "below".

Do we change the text or do we add the reference?

I was searching got the link to have a look, so I'd have been happy if it were there. But then again, one can look it up in rocketboom's archive, and wikipedia should become a link archive.

opinions? JanCK 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Tribune article

Until today (23th Sep) there was a link to

It got deleted, as it wasn't available for free anymore. But you can still find it at: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/1009178451.html?dids=1009178451:1009178451&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+24%2C+2006&author=Steve+Johnson%2C+Tribune+Internet+critic&pub=Chicago+Tribune&edition=&startpage=1&desc=%27Rocketboom%27%3A+So+what%27s+all+the+fuss+about%3F JanCK 12:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I deleted it because I only got coding rather than the page with the abstract. So what I did was substitute another article by Steve Johnson. Pepso 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for NPOV

  • Recent edits by Sarahmeyers seems insistent on restoring a much older version on top of recent edits made by a large number of users. This article needs quite a bit of work (and I invite others to help) but I take specific issue with including large amounts of uncited viewership/popularity statistics yet deleting an independent analysis by 'BusinessWeek' that provides a different yet interesting viewpoint. Cleanr 02:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether or not Rocketboom has a larger audience than another show is not at issue here. BusinessWeek and TechCrunch both published a story. After further peer review BusinessWeek published an additional story [1] stating that the original data provided to both TechCrunch and BusinessWeek was false. This information may not be flattering to Rocketboom but it's certainly relevant in the overall context of the article. Cleanr 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I just spoke with Andrew and he said that the reason why the information is misleading and why he feels it's unfair is because it does not include off site numbers. A large part of the audience for Rocketboom gets Rocketboom through other parties. So the numbers are not off compared to what Andrew reported. - Sarah Meyers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.200.195 (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has a number of problems and a series of harsh reverts (and then blind/anonymous reverts) by people with a potential for bias hasn't helped (see WP:COI). This article (and the related Andrew Baron article) do not read like encyclopedia articles. The edit histories on both are somewhat alarming. I'll avoid comment on that other than to point out that articles that are so one-sided and positive might not be as effective a tool as some might believe. Specific to the statistics issue, both articles rely heavily on using large audience claims to establish importance and, in previous merge/delete discussions, even notability for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:NOT). However, the most recent and most credible published facts regarding viewership undermine all of the previous numbers. Specific to the comment above, the information that Mr. Baron apparently now wants included in Wikipedia is the precise information he refused to turn over to a BusinessWeek reporter for verification when directly asked for it (see [2] and also WP:V). Cleanr 22:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest investigation

If anyone here is affiliated with Rocketboom, you are welcome to contact me via my talk page and I'll explain how you can help here without running afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. The editing here has been messy, and we should try to do better. - Jehochman Talk 01:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important Understaning of Statistic

In order to present people with an accurate understanding of Rocketboom (unlike the ones the trolls always add):

Compete attempts to measure the traffic to our rocketboom.com website but it's incapable of measuring our daily traffic for several reasons. Most of our daily traffic happens in other places besides the Rocketboom.com website. YouTube, Yahoo Video, Blip, TiVo, iTunes, the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, they are not able to measure the RSS traffic, especially because our file servers are on rocketboom.net, not rocketboom.com. Thus, every time someone on iTunes or Miro or TiVo or even Google Reader grabs a video, Compete doesn't track that. RSS is most of our traffic too.

I think this is clear: Compete would not claim Rocketboom to one of the fasts growing sites with only 11k views gained over a whole year. OBVIOUSLY.

But! Compete is special and their growth %, the point of this story, is important:

Whatever # they do come up with, X, they know that X will grow of fall based on the same factors (for the most part). So if they say Rocketboom is X in Feb of 2007 and then say it's X+ in 2008, then the % of growth is real, at least compared to their own control factors.

This is also one of the reasons why the BUsiness week article is wrong on the count. They were not able to measure off-site traffic beyond the stats that we provided.

If anyone is having a hard time understanding this, please let me know. Any stats expert will confirm that this is the way all video sites work. COnsider comparing the other companies on the COmpete list and you will assume that the #'s are impossibly too small to show a complete picture.

Thus, the solution is to not provide an "actual #", because this number is unknown.

  • A specific number is provided in the cited reference and the article is providing numbers in that section. While a number might not tell the whole story, "top video startup" isn't accurate either. Also, using the term "startup" doesn't seem appropriate since the show is several years old. -Cleanr (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Cleanr, you can not change the definition of Startup to suit your own personal interests. Also "top video startup" is what Compete said and even if you can't delete this just because you don't agree with Compete. The main message of the compete citing that is important for people looking into Rocketboom is this: "Compete, an industry standard stats company, ranked Rocketboom on top". Everything else leads the audience to a muddy interpretation or, by your edits, a poor or wrong interpretation. - AndrewBaron —Preceding comment was added at 04:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup - April 2008

This article was merged in March. References need to be unified in style and external links need to be sorted and trimmed to suit the new content. Cleanr (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apple Keynote References

I removed the following text from the article "Rocketboom was premiered on Steve Jobs' October 2005 Apple keynote, showing Rocketboom on the iMac G5." The text was re-added by Andrew Baron himself and appears to be a bad faith edit. You can watch the keynote at the following URL: http://stream.qtv.apple.com/events/oct/oct_event/m_oct_event_all_ref.mov (see 13:39 to 13:41). The word "Rocketboom" is on screen for two seconds while the demo scrolls to a different video. Rocketboom is neither mentioned nor shown and certainly not "premiered" (the show was a year old at that point). If I'm missing something here please provide a clear citation, thanks. -Cleanr (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Apple Keynote References

Actually Cleanr is wrong. The history shows that someone else added the keynote reference to begin with and then Cleanr deleted the reference, stating that the reason was because Rocketboom was never referenced. Then after I undeleted Cleanr's factually unjustified edit, now cleanr has claimed he is deleting it for a different reason.

Im talking to you now Cleanr, since you wont address me. Rocketboom was cited during the keynote, even though you deleted the entry stating that it was not cited. However, Rocketboom was cited during BOTH keynotes and the second time, was played exclusively on screen. In both cases, it made international news because of it. Im happy to elaborate more on the history here on this article where it will forever be.

The first instance included a mention in the Rolling Stone article that was used to reference the story that Cleanr deleted. As the Rolling Stone reported, even just a "fact check" was a very important part of Rocketboom's growth and cred.

As everyone will note, Cleanr has, over a year, make alterations to this article ONLY in the negative and that history shows this in all the claims above.

With all my honor, passion, logic, rationale and feeling, this experience of dealing with Cleanr and standing by watching Cleanr try to change history, even if its not important to you, has led me to completely lose faith in the importance of Wikipedia. While I still think Wikipedia is important, its could turn out to be the biggest cause of false history we've ever seen. Once you experience it close to home, you can see how the world can wind up with a really messed up interpretation. Think of all the articles that have negative people trying to alter them, when no one knows or may ever know.

It looks like our colleagues from Tikibar, (the creator Jeff stated in a comment on my blog that Rocketboom inspired Tikibar) has the important reference to the keynote as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiki_Bar_TV#cite_note-0

Therefore, I added the references to Steve Jobs back into the article. I would add Tikibar to the list of other shows that were inspired by Rocketboom, or platforms, such as Blip.TV, but Cleanr already deleted the list because he didn't think it was important enough.

  • I don't recall seeing (or deleting) any such list. But again I would urge you to base your additions based on reputable sources that you can reference at the bottom of the article. An example of this is the BusinessWeek post you mention below. That article states that "Steve Jobs flashed a clip of the video blog Tiki Bar TV". It does not mention Rocketboom. Therefore the information on the Tiki Bar TV entry is appropriate but the Rocketboom page is not. Likewise having one of your idols leave a comment on you blog may be flattering, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? No, because BusinessWeek does not report the direct influence. However it does say "The Rocketboom video blog helped pioneer [the series format]" which is appropriate for the article (and frankly, says pretty much the same thing). -Cleanr (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here is the quote from Jeff: 'Your podcast was the first one I saw and that's the moment I said "I must do this too".' Im REALLY flattered because I consider Jeff a master. The link to the comment is here along with a lot of other information about Rocketboom that is very relevant to this article: http://www.dembot.net/005398.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron (talk • contribs) 04:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone out there from Wikipedia needs more justification to ban Cleanr, I'd say the future of History is nearing the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You obviously have strong feelings and a number of stories to tell. Unfortunately Wikipedia may not be the venue for many of them. Wikipedia strives to present a neutral point of view with lots of citations to reputable information sources. Yes, the Rocketboom article is a bit off the rails. The "popularity" section as a whole is a landmine. But it's getting better. Specific to your comments above, while it's undoubtedly exciting to see your name on the screen during an Apple keynote for two seconds, this bit of trivia might not belong in an encyclopedia. If indeed Rocketboom made "international press" due to this appearance, please cite articles and let people summarize. If the New York Times says the year-old Rocketboom "premiered" at the keynote (despite the video not even being played) then editors will consider it for inclusion in the article. Likewise when your four year old web site is 20th (dead last) on a list of sites in a promotional article by a company that sells statistics, where Rocketboom doubles from 11,000 monthly visitors to 22,000 versus other companies growing 19769% to millions of visitors, summarizing the article to promote yourself a "top startup" raises eyebrows. Given your potential conflict of interest here, I'd urge you to avoid hyperbole and to provide solid references for the material you add. And just because it isn't in Wikipedia doesn't make it false, either: some of these quotes can and should be used in your personal marketing even if they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. -Cleanr (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Cleanr and Andrewbaron are getting into a revert war, although I suspect that much of it would be eliminated if Cleanr would put [citation needed] notes where needed rather than simply reverting. There is no excessive POV, or any that I can really see to the Andrewbaron edits, which shows WP:good faith while maybe overlooking the proper references for others to check on his work. Please offer some documentation using wiki markup and references, Andrewbaron, and Cleanr's revertions will be even more unnecessary than they already are. If Cleanr has removed the citation itself, please add it again so that others may fact check. MMetro (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I added those {{cn}} tags myself --Enric Naval (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Metro, thanks you for proving some reason. Cleanr has reverted YET again. Here is why I agree with you that Cleanr is not in good faith: Steve Jobs fact checked Rocketboom twice, but the second time, we were the only ones, and Rocketboom played on screen. Yet, Cleanr tried to delete BOTH references saying that the first reference was just the name showing on screen, while no video played. If that one quality was so important, than Cleanr should of left the second one and deleted the first one. However, Cleanr just deleted both of them and has done so 4 times total now. This is so blatantly obvious. I would like to point out that the Amanda Congdon article as well as my personal article (which Cleanr drove to deleting) have been "owned" by Cleanr. Why then is Cleanr not interested in Rocketboom'c competition? He makes no edits to other, extremely relevant articles that are intwined into the Rocketboom article, like the Amanda Congdon article. Cleanr, care to speak up? Also Metro, I got your message suggesting that I not edit my own companies article. I feel as though its better to have me edit it while you know who I am and can thus be extra sure about the POW. We dont know who Cleanr is, she is anonymous, and out with a vengance.

I'd like to delete this article too, just like the Andrew Baron article, because I would rather have people come to our site to learn about Rocketboom, as opposed to this one anonymous character named Cleanr who has been controlling this article for a year with a negative POV Andrewbaron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have tried to start a discussion with Cleanr on his talk page and have asked that he and I both stop editing the page until we can come to a better understanding of the conflict that we are having [on a side note, Im trying to figure out how to leave my signature after each edit on Wikipedia so bare with me on this point] Andrewbaron (talk) Andrewbaron —Preceding comment was added at 19:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your summary of my edit history is again incorrect here. Please provide diffs and/or links to edits if you insist on using this sort of tone (it's generally frowned upon). I've tried to discuss content with you on this page; you haven't responded. Likewise on my talk page there's no talk of the content issue, just more accusations of who I am and why I'm involved with Wikipedia. This is really not helpful. Please try and keep discussions to the content, not the editors. Specifically: can you cite a reference where it states that Steve Jobs "premiered" Rocketboom during his October keynote? Can you provide a time offset where a Rocketboom video is shown in the video of the keynote posted on the Apple website? -Cleanr (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-- The comment about not editing the Rocketboom article was NOT mine. My comments are always ended with the four tildes needed to produce a time stamped signature. It is a very important habit as comments from different people could otherwise get mixed up with each other.
-- Cleanr is right about needing a reference. It is a significant conference, so there must be some way someone else can confirm your information, whether Rocketboom was listed in a program provided by the conference, media coverage of the event, or even a Rocketboom episode with video backing the claim. This is probably the most important part of WP:verifiability, because Andrew Baron is privy to information that the average person is unable to access. Wikipedia's reliability is dependent on people being able to confirm information to make their own judgment. If you know of the specific revision in which Cleanr deleted a necessary reference, please list when that occurred. Otherwise, Cleanr, as the username suggests, primarily operates in a maintainance capacity. As his user page states, the fact that we are having this conversation suggests that there is an issue that needs to be addressed, but as far Cleanr last comment goes, it seems a matter of proper referencing. Although, what may have once been a matter of refusal may be a matter of the time sensitive nature of the data. The government classifies things all the time until the time sensitive nature allows the data not to have time sesitive consequences. If Rocketboom at one time needed to refuse to provide the data, say to prevent investment speculation, it might not anymore, but the information, as it pertains to the accuracy of the article, should be provided, where needed, so that all assertions made with the recent edit can be verified. MMetro (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Word on Steve Jobs Reference

"The big leagues have taken note. Steve Jobs gave the site a tremendous boost last October when he name-checked Rocketboom during the unveiling of the video iPod." - Rolling Stone Magazine

My notes: The unvailing of the video ipod was even more revolutionary than the iPhone. The fact that Steve Jobs had in his own personal que, Rocketboom and Tikibar TV, and Rocketboom and Tikibar TV ONLY, sent a signal throughoput the web that independent media was being taken seriously. It was the first major awknoledgement of independent media. Steve Jobs could of shown main stream videos. It was mentioned in blogs and main stream news articles all over and in many languages. The most relevant quote for Wikipedia standards I assume would be from the Rolling Stone Magazine, part of a full page article in the actual magazine. I left this link once already but Cleanr deleted it. As you will note from my comments above, this is also why Tikibar TV, a show that was inspired by Rocketboom, seems to have the citing in their Wikipedia page as well. Steve Jobs actually selected Tikibar TV and played a bit of their video on screen the first time. The second time, it was Rocketboom only.

Or perhaps it would be better for you to hear it from the New York Times:

"The vlog has been up and running for 14 months, but it's only in the last two that Web video has become new media's favorite new medium - since Apple Computer's iTunes online store began stocking vlogs, calling them video podcasts and making it easy to download them for free viewing on the new iPods. In fact, the day Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, introduced the video iPod to developers, he showed a playlist of video podcasts on his computer. Rocketboom was at the top."

The article above in the NYTimes ran as the top story in the International paper on the front page of the arts section on a Sunday.

Also here is information related to the second check, where Rocketboom was shown during the introduction of the iTV and where Steve Jobs refers to our content with a joke as our video plays onscreen: http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/live-from-the-steve-jobs-keynote-its-showtime/

Once again, the fact that Steve Jobs continued to watch Rocketboom and continued to think of Rocketboom as worth rolling out with the first ever video iPod and well as the iTV, is in fact two of the greatest affirmations in our history so far. This second instance also came at a time after the turmoil of losing our original host and it sent out a strong message that Rocketboom was still considered important. We are regularly featured on iTunes and have always been major fans of Apple but we have never had any formal arrangements, exchanged money and Ive yet to meet Steve Jobs myself. Andrewbaron (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do now is adding the sources to the article as inline references, replacing the "fact" tag that I put up. I would do it myself, but I'm too tired right now. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Andrewbaron added: "Rocketboom was premiered on Steve Jobs' October 2005 Apple keynote, showing Rocketboom on the iMac G5." I don't see support for that in the references above. The articles say iPod and not iMac G5. Going from "namechecked" to "premiered the show" to "Steve Jobs continued to watch Rocketboom" requires a source. Please see WP:NOR and provide references that support the addition. Cleanr (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Cleanr, someone else added the Steve Jobs reference first, look into further: you are making another false claim, I would never say G5, look above, its about the video ipod, not the G5. The problem is, you kept deleteing it and not changing it. All the while you are not an expert in this field and have not done your homework on the history. Andrewbaron (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-- It looks like you guys may be close to a consensus. There are facts Andrewbaron wants that Cleanr is requiring citations as proof of. The Joanne Colan photo from one show is proof enough of a post-Amanda reference, the other sources do show that Steve Jobs is a notable fan of Rocketboom, which resulted in much publicity for RB, but the iMac G5 is not mentioned, or photographed (I think). Everybody is passionate about getting it right, which is good. Now all we have to do is get the facts straight. We cannot make any jumps of logic as to what Steve Jobs was showing Rocketboom off on, or any exaggeration as to his being a fan. "Rocketboom was premiered" is poorly phrased, as there is ambiguity as to whether it is Rocketboom's premiere (since the first episodes date from late October 2004) or the premiere of an Apple product. It is clear that Cleanr is not acting out of malice, or to spite Andrew, but is pointing out some important differences between what's been cited and what's been added. I can have a tendency for using weasel words, if I had to do the edit myself. Hopefully, Enric Naval will chime in at his next opportunity. Or Andrew could show a letter from Steve Jobs on Apple stationary that can clear up all complaints about that. : ) MMetro (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, @ Enric, I wish I felt comfortable re-writing the whole entry and doing the clean up thats needed, but I dont. I have been told on my talk page that Wikipedia suggests I not edit the article of the company Im involved with. They said the first choice is to use this discussion page to clerify the edits. Im going to continue to do this and urge Cleanr to do this as well. If Cleanr continues to make unjustified edits to the article however, and I notice that everyone else is too lazy, Im not going to stand by and watch. As I mentioned, I would prefer to do the clean-up and try to propose a fresh new start so if anyone thinks that would be appropriate, let me know. Andrewbaron (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be a bad idea to take on the rewrite of the entire article by yourself. Wikipedia is so highly regarded by search engines that many people become concerned about the objectivity when an article tows the company line. That is what is meant when the other poster asked you not to edit this webpage. The article should remain objective, and should neither hype or detract from what Rocketboom has accomplished. Cleanr is doing a better job of explaining his actions, and I believe when everything settles, there will be a much better article as a result. Thanks for providing those references. Somebody should add them at their earliest convenience. Unfortunately, right now, it's not mine to do so. MMetro (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
To clarify the edit history, I deleted the information here [3] and provided a reference to the video in my summary. User:andrewbaron added it to the article to the article three times (see [4] and [5] and [6]). At least one of those was an undo of my undo, which I'll accept blame for. But please refrain from making personal attacks, especially in your edit summaries. And note that you did indeed add "G5" to the Rocketboom article (three times!), which you state above is incorrect information. Cleanr (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In all 3 of the links you provide above, none of them include any edits by me about G5. Lets get over the G5 thing. The point is that RB was name checked on the video iPod and the iTV. Now you are taking blame for making bad edits which is a good thing. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please continue to focus on the content (and please sign your comments using four tildes). Also, phrases like "Final Word On..." and "End of story." won't help build consensus. Note that the content of the article still does not agree with the cited sources above. Also, do you have a verifiable source (see WP:V) for the iTV information you added? The link above doesn't support the claim that "Steve Jobs refers to our content with a joke" as he seems to be talking about podcasts in general. Nor does it support the content in Rocketboom stating "Rocketboom was demonstrated exclusively on stage a second time" especially since it wasn't demonstrated the first time. Likewise "exclusively" implies 1) Steve Jobs did a keynote where he demonstrated nothing at all but Rocketboom or 2) Steve Jobs showed nothing at all on the iTV except Rocketboom. Both of those are demonstrably false from the citation. By further example, both "Steve Jobs said Rocketboom was unprofessional" (negative) and "Steve Jobs said Rocketboom is fun to watch" (positive) aren't supported by the blog post and I'd remove either from the article, too. Again, finding reputable sources and letting them speak for themselves is a great way to avoid these sorts of conflicts. Avoiding "weasel words" and keeping a clear head as you summarize something you obviously care about is hard. But some of these edits really do push my ability to assume good faith as you seem to be violating WP:NPOV repeatedly and on purpose. Cleanr (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that Andrew is more concerned that there could be editors who have motives for personal malice against Rocketboom, since Wikipedia is also known for vandalism. Although conflicting viewpoints often have to mash it out within an article, I hope we have done our best to assure him that malice is not welcome at Wikipedia. The only concern are inflated numbers, which are often reported when dealing with internet traffic See 5/8/08 Talk of the Nation Story, and other hyperbole, which belong on a commercial website, not here. However, I think the cites show that Steve Jobs' use of Rocketboom has given it a lot of publicity. At least that can be noted. MMetro (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a bit of time, and I added the sources to the article[7]. I left the second statement for now in case someone can find a source for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)