Category: Social Media

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.

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?

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.)

Susan Mernit pointed to an SF Weekly article on Craigslist founder Craig Newmark. Though she liked what the author, Ryan Blitstein, had to say, Susan expressed concern that he did not mention any women in the article–especially among the media critics. I’ll get into Susan’s concern later, tying it into something else I’m writing. For now, though, I want to look more closely at what Blitstein wrote about Newmark, the old media, and the new citizen journalism.

In reference to Newmark’s obvious financial success, as compared to Craigslist’s seemingly profitless persona and the somewhat negative impact this success has had on newspapers, Blitstein wrote:

It’s hard to reconcile Newmark’s utopian vision with Craigslist’s real-world revenues and the site’s effect on the media. To his credit, Newmark is obviously struggling with the issue. He doesn’t want to cause job losses, or contribute to journalism’s decline, and he hopes to use his power and money to fix the problem, but he isn’t sure exactly how: “I don’t know much about what to do about it, except to accelerate change. The news industry is experiencing serious dislocation. It’s happening. The faster it happens, the faster we get to new technologies, the more money and more opportunities journalists and editors will have.”

For nearly a year, he’s been talking up the use of new technologies, especially the potential of online citizen journalism. Now, he’s finally ready to put his money where his mouth is by funding a new venture. “It needs noise, buzz, and some smartass like me getting people to talk,” he says, animated as a preacher, so excited he nearly jumps out of his chair. “And I have to dwell on this, and this is big, and this may be the biggest contribution I ever make.”

Blistein carefully questioned the assumptions about the inherent goodness of the new citizen journalists–not because citizen journalism is not capable of contributing to the good of all; but because citizen journalists will never have the facilities, discipline, and opportunities to follow through on more in-depth stories:

Citizen journalism may become a helpful supplement to mainstream reporting, especially in smaller towns, just as bloggers help elucidate news on specific topics for millions of readers. But the more important (and more challenging) the stories are, the more likely it is that citizen journalists won’t have the wherewithal to complete them. “Citizen journalism will not be the Fourth Estate,” Cauthorn says. “It’s not going to sit down and stare across the room at an army of lawyers for some government official who’s outraged that you’ve written about his misdeeds.”

But if citizen journalism can’t replace the traditional media, surely its effects are innocuous, at worst. Not ncessarily so, as Blitstein points out:

In the best case, Newmark is joining a movement that will someday be of moderate help to the mainstream media. In the worst case, citizen journalism’s optimistic supporters, in neglecting the problems of the public institution that is the mainstream press, may leave America with both a failing news media and a mediocre technology that offers little assistance on essential stories.

Oddly enough just after reading this article, I received a link from Jonathon Delacour this morning to another writing that covers somewhat this same theme (found via a post at Drunken Blog). The writing was a weblog post titled, Party like it’s 1999, by photojournalist Jim Lowney. It in, Lowney talks about meeting with his old friend Tim Blair at the Open Source Media launch party.

A little corvid out in Reno mentioned yesterday that the mad Aussie journo Tim Blair was back in the Big Apple…Better yet, there was some sort of blogger conference complete with a free cocktail party or wine time or such…Blair said it was the launch of something called Open Source Media, formerly known as Pajamas Media, a massing of bloggers in some business venture.

What is *Open Source Media? The site says, among other things:

Where journalists once gave us “experts say,” blogs give us the experts themselves. And where faceless, “objective” editorial boards once handed down opinions and endorsements, bloggers sound off, the numbers on their public sitemeters lending them unassailable credibility as voices for the rest of us.

(emphasis mine)

It purports to be some form of formalized citizen journalism and it’s advisory board has members both luminous and not within weblogging circles. However, it was the staff that gave me pause; staff such as Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Charles Johnson. If you’re unaware of that name, let me give you Mr. Johnson’s weblog: Little Green Footballs. And who is CEO? Well, none other than Roger Simon. Looking through both the Advisory Board and staff, the only person who seems to be missing to truly give this new effort that necessary ‘rottweiler/pit bull’ feel, is Josh Trevino. But have no worries at his absence: he’s over at yet another example of citizen journalism, Spot On. (Well, Michelle Malkin could do equally well, but she’s busy writing definitive history books.)

At the post launch party, while attempting to have a quiet smoke with his old friend, Lowney recounts his experience with most of the attendees:

The September 11 attacks quickly became the meat of the conversation. But these nice folks didn’t mention the horror or death or the survivors or the wounding of a city or brave firefighters or fatherless children. They didn’t even offer a personal tale of the day. There were no “I remember exactly what I was doing when I heard” stories.

The talk went straight to the media coverage…I believe many of these people have come up with the information equivalent of the biggest mistake in dirty politics. As we know in politics, it’s not the alleged crime but the cover-up that takes you down. To some of these bloggers, it is not the story that matters but the coverage. And they want to use the coverage to take down whatever news outlet doesn’t fit in their world.

And they want to use the coverage to take down whatever news outlet doesn’t fit in their world. What news outlets? The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Sydney Morning Herald and the BBC among them; even my city’s own St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In their place, we’ll have Open Source Media and Spot-On and Newmark’s effort with Jarvis, not to mention Dan Gilmor’s Bayosphere effort and all the others–most either funded by eager venture capitalists or adoring fans; most run by people who have ‘made it big’ in weblogging more by being colorful pundits than by being journalists.

To aid them, we’ll create new applications that will allow us to discover the differing opinions, the divese voices, and, above all, the Truth; applications based on the same technology that now helps us discover fresh, new voices, and that obscure but essential story.

Earlier in his writing, Lowney detailed how he was introduced to a group of the launch attendees by Blair:

Blair was making up stories about me in Bosnia and then said something about covering 9-11.

“So, you went right from the war in Bosnia to 9-11?” asked one woman. The woman next to her also eagerly awaited my answer.

I just looked at them and said not exactly.

In his article, Blistein references Wikipedia, seen as a combination validation and poster child for mass editing and other cooperative efforts:

Many citizen journalism proponents believe the best method is to let users do everything — reporting, writing, and editing the stories with minimal oversight. The shining example of the self-correcting site is Wikipedia.org, the online encyclopedia with 818,000 “wiki” Web page entries written and rewritten entirely by a volunteer user community. Users argue over facts and opinions within forums, and the site generally avoids “edit wars” over the content of pages.

As evidenced in my previous post, ‘edit wars’ are only a click away at any moment. In fact, we have discovered, over time and in sad, tedious detail, the subjects where an edit war is most likely going to take place are the most vulnerable subjects, and the ones where we need an assured neutrality the most.

In response to today’s Wikipedia happenings, Dave Winer made what I felt was one of the best statements about the entire event. As you read it, though, consider replacing Wikipedia with Wikipedia and citizen journalism:

the bigger problem is that Wikipedia is so often considered authoritative. That must stop now, surely. Every fact in there must be considered partisan, written by someone with a confict of interest. Further, we need to determine what authority means in the age of Internet scholarship. And we need to take a step back and ask if we really want the participants in history to write and rewrite the history. Isn’t there a place in this century for historians, non-participants who observe and report on the events

No worries, Dave. I’m sure Malkin’s available.