Categories
Social Media

Podcasting Wikipedia update

I wanted to note that the Podcasting article at Wikipedia has been designated a good article and may end up being a featured article. There have been edits to the section I re-wrote, but the edits have been to add additional information. I wouldn’t necessarily have added some of it, but what was added was neutral in tone, and therefore fit within Wikipedia guidelines.

The adulation and the rancor present in the previous version of the Podcasting history has been ruthlessly dug out. and just as ruthlessly (and quickly) reverted when bits pop up now and again.

Good job, one and all.

Categories
Diversity Social Media

Ladies, Wikipedia is ours

Rogers Cadenhead wrote on Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales edits of his own biography. During the discussion, Rogers mentioned his own Wikipedia entry. I checked, and sure enough: Rogers has an entry. That’s odd, I thought. Many of the male webloggers I know have an entry in Wikipedia, but most of the women I know, don’t. I brought this up with Rogers and he noticed the same.

Why are there significantly fewer women? I think one reason is that we women are taught not to put ourselves forward. Men are complimented for tooting their own horn; making known their wishes; noting their own accomplishments. Women, however, are expected to be sweet, demure, and most of all, stay ever so slightly in the shadow. Well, unless we’re eye candy, in which case not only should we be in the light, we should be wearing as little as possible so that our ‘assets’ can be fully explored.

Besides, who are we to say we deserve an entry? After all, it’s up to those around us who are required by laws of nature to perceive our goodness and give us the reassurance we need–without our asking (because if we have to ask, it’s not the same). After all, we can’t be expected to have enough confidence in our own abilities and accomplishments that we don’t need external validation. A needy woman is a sexy woman.

Something else to consider: how many women would not want articles up at Wikipedia anyway? It is a rough and tumble world, where people will say nasty things about us. We are, after all, delicate by nature, and easily offended and it’s just oh so distasteful to have to brawl with those nasty people who are so mean.

We have bought into such a bill of goods. We think that change for women must come at the ballot box or on the job but it has to begin within ourselves. We have to, first of all, acknowledge that we are worthy people: not as employees, not as wives, and, especially, not as mothers. We, the persons we are independent of our relationship with others, are worthy.

The concept behind women and visibility isn’t limited to a one hour session at a conference in Texas. It pervades our environment; it exists everywhere we look. We can choose to talk about it, or we can choose to do something about it. A place to start is recognizing that we deserve recognition.

Ladies, ask yourself this question: If you feel that you’re as much of a public figure as Rogers, Danny Ayers, Kevin Drum, Kevin Marks, Dave Sifry, Andrew Orlowski, Dave Winer, Robert Scoble, Ben Hammersley, Marc Canter, Seth Finkelstein, and numerous other gentlemen of our weblogging acquaintance, leave a comment or send me and email and I’ll start you a Wikipedia page. You’ll need to give me some basic biographical information to start.

(I also hope that one of you will do me the courtesy and create a page for me, since it’s not the done thing to create one for ourselves. And if inaccurate information is added, or a non-nuetral POV is expressed, I will edit the entry. Oh, and it’s ShellEy Powers. I’m attached to that second ‘e’.)

If you do decide you’ve earned a right to a Wikipedia entry, you’ll have to accept the fact that people can and will add ’stuff’ into your page. However, contrary to myth, if someone puts something inaccurate about yourself in your bio page, you can correct it. This doesn’t mean, though, that you’ll be allowed to dump the butter boat over yourself and make yourself into the next Princess Diane.

The Wikipedia editors are pretty ruthless: you’ll have to defend your page. They’re going to question whether you deserve the page; it will be up to you, then, to say, damn right, I do.

Ken Camp and Scott Reynman were both kind enough to add an entry for me (at almost the same time). It was immediately added to the articles to delete queue for discussion. People will add Keep/Delete votes with associated reasons, and in the end, it will be deleted or saved. This is how Wikipedia works. Now, we’ll see if it gets defended and remains, or ends up on the cutting room floor.

update

You can see the old discussion about deleting Rogers Cadenhead article.

update

follow up post that discusses the ends and outs of deleting a wikipedia entry, including comments from Wikipedia authors.

Categories
Social Media

Pedia pother

I made the changes to the initial development section in the Wikipedia entry on podcasting and aside from a couple of comments, not much has been said about it. I’m not sure if it was because I actually made the change, or because the new entry is uninteresting and dull. I rather think dull might be good; nothing more neutral than dull.

I expect over time it will gradually grow, though I hope it doesn’t end up peppered with the same names repeated over and over. Seeing that happen again would be like golf–it might be fun to do, but sucks to watch. But watch is what I’ll do; I’m not going to start feeling ownership of the section.

Wikipedia has taken a beating lately, and I think we’ll all be healthier for it. Too many people treated it like the second coming, closing their ears to potential problems. It’s amusing to see them ’suddenly’ become alert to its pitfalls. Fancy. Kids will also be less likely to copy from it for their papers (now having no recourse but to return to plagarizing books from the library). I did get a kick out of Dave Winer’s (tongue-in-cheek perhaps?) suggestion to turn the Wikipedia podcast entry over to Harvard folk, as a precedent for future Wikipedia effort. Yes, nothing like the Harvard touch to bring a diversified view to the world.

As for the edits I made, I used one criteria for judging what material to keep: was the event, software, or person necessary for the initial development of podcasting. Did I capture all of the events, software, and people? I made the assumption that if I did not, someone would add what was missing; hopefully basing their addition on the same criteria.

Scott had a good question in my comments about what to add and not to Wikipedia. He wrote:

Isn’t there any room in Wikipedia for anecdotes? I mean, it’s not like they’re short on storage space. Don’t the meaningless, if accurate, anecdotes make history much more interesting. A strictly historical account of George Washington crossing the Delaware is pretty dry unless you include him throwing a coin across. Chances are, the coin tossing is what will cause you to remember the entire event.

Anecdotal information is the spice in history; as such, you have to know what you’re doing when you use it, because a little bit goes a long way.

I strongly believe in the anecdotal when it comes to a telling of history. When we read a biography of George Patton, there is much we learn about the man when we hear anecdotes such as his slapping a man who was seriously shell-struck, and then having to apologize in front of all his men.

But then we have to look further into the story: about how horrified Patton was at his action when he realized the patient was in a very bad state; how those loyal to him cheered so loudly during his apology that overcome with gratitude, his eyes welled up with unshed tears and he couldn’t finish.

Or was he horrified? Or did his men cheer so loud he couldn’t complete his apology? This is the challenge of anecdotal information, and in the case of Wikipedia, all such should be suspect.

Categories
Social Media

Backchannel is back

I haven’t been following much about Les blogs, until I heard about a problem with backchannels. I gather that the official backchannel for Lesblogs was more than a bit disruptive at times, resulting in Mena Trott calling one of the more disruptive participants, Ben Metcalf, an asshole during her talk on being civil in weblogging.

(The post I linked has a movie of the event, though it’s hard to hear Mena’s response. There’s also a transcript of the backchannel, though it seems to be incomplete.)

Very savvy marketer Tara Rogue likes backchannels:

We come to conferences to learn stuff, sure, but first and foremost for many of us, we come to connect. Speakers and panels kill networking time. Kill it. And really, since the advent of the internet, many of us would sit in our seats with our laptops pointing towards our email or Skype or the like, where we would be socializing with people back home rather than the very people we came here to connect with.

Elisa from WorkerBees disagrees:

Seriously I don’t think it says much for the program content if a chat about the WIFI being down and the need for more coffee is more fun than listening to the speakers! And I sure hope to avoid spending the hundreds and hundreds of dollars it typically costs to fly somewhere, stay in a hotel and pay a conference fee only to essentially IM with my buddies.

Some folks were upset at Mena for calling Ben an asshole during her session on civility. I think she was just being disruptive, and since backchannelers live for being disruptive, they should commend her rather than condemn her. I, personally, commend her because not only was she being disruptive, she was doing so in front of the stage rather than in back of it. Unless, of course, in this brand new world, speaking behind one’s back is considered much cooler than speaking directly, face to face.

My views on backchannels are well known. However, I have to consider that this is a brand new world and new ways of communicating at conferences are the norm now. If a backchannel occurs at our SxSW session, I have to accept this is the ‘new’ way; if four strongly opinionated women technologists debating differing views on a controversial issue can’t hold audience members’ attention, a backchannel will occur and the sound of clacking keyboards will be heard throughout the room.

Of course, I reserve the right to deal with disruption in my own way.

 

By the by, are Apple PowerBooks waterproof?

Categories
Social Media

Podcasting history

I can’t stand the Initial Development history section of the Podcasting entry at Wikipedia. It’s horribly written and full of accusations and people’s names inserted just to mark themselves into the story. I was only half joking about editing the section, but I’m not now. I have no part in podcasting so I have nothing to win or lose by what’s listed in the history of podcasting–well, other than it pains me to see the Wikipedia entry as it now stands.

Following is a history, rewritten from the existing entry and taking into account current discussions. I do have a Wikipedia account, and will edit it under my account name (Shelleyp). Let me know critical elements that are missing from this history. Questions about items are embedded and if anyone has the answers, let me know.

What makes podcasting unique from other digitalized audio technologies is the use of syndication feed enclosures to automatically download audio files for those subscribed to the particular feed. The concept of using syndication feeds for this purpose originated with a draft proposal submitted by Tristan Louis, in addition to conversations between Dave Winer, author of the Really Simply Syndication (RSS) format, Adam Curry, and others. To facilitate this functionality, Winer created a new version of RSS, RSS 0.92, adding a new element, enclosure. He demonstrated, publicly, how it would work by enclosing a Grateful Dead song, January 12th, 2001.

The use of the enclosure element to push audio files originally had slow acceptance among webloggers or tool developers. Winer incorporated RSS enclosures into the Userland weblogging product, Radio. Since Radio had a built-in aggregator, it provided end-to-end podcasting support, though the term most used at the time was audio-blog or audioblog.

In June of 2003, Stephen Downes demonstrated aggregation and syndication of audio files using RSS in his Ed Radio application. Ed Radio scanned RSS feeds for MP3 files, collected them into a single feed, and made the result available as SMIL or Webjay audio feeds. In September of that same year, Winer created an RSS-with-enclosures feed for his Harvard Berkman Center colleague Christopher Lydon. In his announcement of Lydon’s audio-enclosure feed, Winer challenged other aggregator developers to support this new form of content and provide enclosure support. Pete Prodoehl released a skin for the Amphetadesk aggregator that displayed enclosure links; not long after.. (Who was the first third party aggregators to provide RSS enclosure support in addition to Pete?)

A month later, at the first Bloggercon held at Harvard, Kevin Marks was invited to demonstrate a script to download RSS enclosures to iTunes and synchronize them onto an iPod. Following, on October 12, 2003, Curry offered his blog readers a RSStoiPod script that would do the same. Curry put his Applescript in open source and called it ipodder, at ipodder.org, and encouraged other developers to build on the idea.

Possibly the first use of the term “podcasting”, itself, was as a synonym for audioblogging or weblog-based amateur radio in an article by Ben Hammersley in The Guardian on February 12, 2004. In September of 2004, Dannie Gregoire also used the term to describe the automatic download and synchronization of audio content; he also registered several ‘podcast’ related domains. His and Hammersley’s use of ‘podcast’ was picked up by leading podcasting evangelists such as Winer and Curry and entered common usage.

I still have to add links, but the text is what I’m planning on adding. Note that this cuts out many of the uses and examples of podcasting, which should either be removed entirely from the Wikipedia item, or moved into the section on popularization, or even a new section on history of podcasting tools and technologies. These are, in my opinion, the key elements of the history of podcasting, without enthroning individuals, and without referencing every person who touched podcasting, or even thought about it from the years 2000 through 2004.

You also will also note that I removed the reference to enclosures being in the RDF version of RSS. This is the history of podcasting, and regardless of what other technologies existed at the time that could implement syndication based subscription and production of audio file enclosures, the popularization of the concept of podcasting began with RSS 0.92. This is a history of podcasting, not syndication and media or streaming and media.

What key critical elements am I missing? Who contributed a significant element to podcasting who should specifically be mentioned by name? What errors have I made?

I’m not worried about the grammar so much, because this can be edited after I add the material. But I don’t want to upload this to Wikipedia and have it form the basis of an edit war because so and so was included while so and so was not. I’d like dialog on this before I make the edit.

Note, when I do make this edit I am aware that yes it can be backed out. That’s the nature of Wikipedia, and especially with contentious subjects, ‘owning’ the history is almost as important as ‘owning’ the discovery. However, note to those of you who want to write yourself into this history: it is contrary to Wikipedia’s procedures for you to edit an entry to add or modify entries about yourself. If you feel an error has been made, or that you have been erroneously omitted, initiate a discussion item associated with the article rather than edit the article yourself.

Or, in other words, as my friend Bud the camel would say: Stop screwing with Wikipedia! You’re really pissing me off!

 

(What surprises me the most about this article is how many of the people referenced in this entry have a Wikipedia page about themselves.)