Talk:Podcast/Archive 6

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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: Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7 Homestarmy 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 7

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)

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 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).

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)

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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

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 External_links 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 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".External_links 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) ''External_links 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."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)