Talk:Podcast/Archive 3

Recent lawsuits pursued by Apple

I think that the recenct lawsuits Apple has pursued against others using the term 'podcast' should be included in part of this article. The name chosen by many to replace 'podcast' can also be included -- 'netcast'. mojocojo2000 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as netcasts (netcasting) probably will become something that evolves from where podcasting stops, if Apple continues. If anything, the Netcast page will allow for news and updates on the situation. --24.20.181.127 00:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear that Apple is suing for "podcasting". They appear to be going after only companies that have a name that sounds too close to "iPod", which is in fact their right. --Randal L. Schwartz 03:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Apple is not going after the word 'podcast'. They have a trademark on the word "Pod". [1] With trademarks, you have to sue all opposition or lose the trademark. And don't think Apple likes it.

Apple has applied, but has not been granted a trademark for the word "pod". See Trademark Office proceedings [2] Ccadenhead 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Would this be a good external link?

Hi, I wanted to ask about an external link before posting it in the article. Okay To Play contains comparison charts for podcasters to compare the various hosting services, advertising companies, podsafe music resources, audio hardware, and web tools available to podcasters. I know you guys worry about irrelevant and spammy links, so I wanted to run it by you first. Would it be okay to add? Abv 12:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mechanics section is inaccurate

Editing this now - I must make a point though regarding streaming and podcasting. They can be compared on two levels. Firstly, streaming can be of a live event, significantly it can be of a live event. Podcasting can't be streamed live. Streaming technology can support recorded shows too of course. However, 'podcasting' may be a streaming url, nothing dictates that a podcast has to be an offline transfer.

Offline transfers allow you to take content on the road currently, but there is no reason not to class syndicated media as 'podcasting' if it is streaming. There are more points, but please discuss. --Author

You could expand the definition of Podcasting to refer to Streaming, but that would render it meaningless. This sounds a bit POV to me; the consensus definition of Podcasting is automated media downloads for offline (in the sense of not requiring a live net connection) playback. Kevin Marks 19:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, we need one list of lists of podcasts

Quite frankly, this article is more useful with at least one link to a list of podcasts. I have done even better. I have, after some struggle with Google, found a list of lists of podcasts. It took me quite some struggle on Google to find places like Odeo and what not; this article has far more value to someone who didn't know anything about podcasts up until about a week ago by having precisely one link to a list of lists. I understand the List of Podcasts article was deleted and I understand the concern about podcasters abusing Wiki to promote their own podcast, but I don't think decreasing the value of this article is the answer. Samboy 05:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

What if we don't have a static list of PodCasts? Let's just have a list that constantly updates itself and only show the top 10 downloaded podcasts? Zhanster 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't Yahoo - setting up constantly-changing lists is asking for a bloated and yet out-of-date article (as the excitement fades, editors will move on to other articles and the dead links will accumulate). Eighty percent of the editing on this article over the last six months has been adding, deleting and twiddling with exterior links. That's not what wikipedia is all about; we're not a directory or link farm. Personally, I'd dump all the links to podcasts or lists or podcasts, leaving only explainers. - DavidWBrooks 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think one reasonable compromise is to have only one or two links and have a As of October 28, 2005 note before the list of links. The links save one who doesn't know about podcasts from having to play the Google game, while not being too numerous to not be maintainable. In fact, I will do this; I think it is a reasonable compromise between having no links and having a zillion links. Samboy 19:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

They've started returning already! - DavidWBrooks 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea, just have one or two links as a excample. We can't have not links because then the readers can't find a proper excample. Zhanster 09:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is that 20 different people will want 20 different sets of "one or two links", so we'll be swamped. That's what keeps happening. - DavidWBrooks 12:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The way I'm getting around this subjectivity is to score links based on the Google link:www.postcastsitename.foo score; I put this score next to the link and the date for the score. Sites with a link score of zero are deleted on the spot (I deleted two such sites). I also delete sites that sell commercial software. My heuristic is a little fuzzy, but I'm far less inclined to delete a link that is itself a list of podcast indexes a.k.a. http://www.podcast411.com/page2.html.

Basically, what I'm trying to remove is links being added by the spammers promoting their own Podcast search engine or podcast writing software (I deleted that link also). I think the Google link: score is a good Heuristic, as is adding lots of bonus points for adding links to other podcasting search engines, the way podcast411 does (the bonus only counts if the link here on Wiki directly links to the list in question). Wiki's job is to point to information already decided to be notable, not try and make non-notable information notable (this is also why I would like to see 99% of the micronation article thrown out) Samboy 17:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, great idea guys. Zhanster 00:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not that I disagree, but how does information become notable in the first place? SR - RE 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

One list? ROFL....how many directories are out there now? about 2 gazillion?

If I could step in- i know this link very very well- it is maintqained almost daily by rob walch of podcast 411- who is one of your few podcast links he is dedicated to maintaining the highest quality of his work and detail and would help make the learning and search curve much easier for any one trying to find directories of podcasts i recommend that if we even consider posting a link of directories, that this be the one thank you Chenza 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at least list a few notable Podcasts, such as Ricky Gervais' which is supposedly breaking records for listeners. -DM

podbaby.net spammer

Just a heads up that a spammer has twice added a link to their podbaby.net website from here. I will remove this site whenever I see it here; it is not a list of podcasts and looks to be one of those sites where you have to pay for them to spam your podcast to search engines. Samboy 18:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

All links should definately have rel="nofollow" - is this done by wikipedia for all links be default? Author

pre-podcast

To the anonymous IP who put in a long discussion about pre-podcast Websites of sound files and the like, which I removed, remember that it takes an automatic download, RSS-like, feature to make a podcast. Online sound and radio shows and music isn't the same thing. - DavidWBrooks 22:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sadly this is technically not accurate. podcasting doesn't indicate automatic downloads and if it is argued that it does then fine, the term is academic. The technology of syndication requires no modifications to incorporate binary data. The technology of syndication, of which it can be argued that podcasting is merely a pseudonym for, allows for applications that may choose to automatically download content from subscribed url's. You bring up a good point, but one that highlights the need to clearly reduce the complexity of this article as it makes the whole issue seem than it is. --Author

Pseudo-archived (a.k.a. deleted)

Linked at top of page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 07:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Pointcast was an automatic download of text, audio and video in the earlier days of the net, as were some of the push technologies like backweb, you'd push and then subscribe to a audio or in limited cases - video channel. It was mostly audio - as bandwidth times restricted audio downloads. The difference may be that these were proprietary sources and you could only get pointcast content on pointcast. They aggregated the content sources. This was done to a screen saver or through a piece of software that was termed "push" in those days or "webcasting". Webcasting can/has been defined as live audio or video via the net and other devices as well as live and download in a number of books by Wiley, N.A.B. and others. Now - the streaming media industry is saying that downloads have always been a part of streaming, and on-demand video whether download or streamed is a part of streaming. The actual technical movement of a file digitally is streaming, using different formats whether mp2, mp3 (not really technically mp3), mp4, mp21. Streaming is a more technical term explaining the distribution of audio and video in a digital format.

There were early download sites that pushed audio and had subscriptions. They didn't last, as it was a cost feature and they couldn't support the technology costs. I believe one was TSK if I remember correctly. I don't remember pseudo having a subscription engine, but remember a couple of sites trying to set up audio push/downloads to listeners/consumers. Just an FYI. I didn't see what was deleted in regard to Pseudo. I assume you were talking about pseudo.com.

The key factor for podcasts via RSS (in my opinion) is that it's not controlled by one content distributor. You have the ability to access content from a number of sources, not just say - RealNetworks, the former pointcast, your cable company, your TV station's content etc. You can access content created by individuals as well as by broadcasters and other corporations.

I'm also wondering why the information on Harry Fox - necessary to license music downloads was removed off the legal issues. If you're not using podsafe music - you need to license the music from Harry Fox or another firm, or the original source of the music. That's the law in the US. In other countries - you have to go through their licensing agencies for replay of the song via download, a clip, version, background music, and the like. When broadcasters licensed the music for some of their intros., etc., they may have only licensed it for on-air use and not Internet streaming or download use.

Some podcasters also stream as well as provide downloads, for those who don't have portable devices. The majority don't own portable devices yet, but can experience RSS now. So streaming is a valuable component if you want to gain more and more people as a podcaster.

Podcasters who stream as well as download have to concern themselves with BMI, ASCAP, Sesac licenses in the US, and other licensing bodies in other countries. Despite fast access and the ability to download files in the US, Japan, Korea and other advanced Internet access countries, there are countless that would like to listen to files, and might not be able to download to a device due to shared computers, accessing by Internet Cafe and the like in other countries and even in developed countries.

A streaming file of a few seconds is also an effective way to preview a podcast without the wait, especially on slower speed downloads. If you say a podcast is only a download through a reader - and not a link to a streaming file on a reader or through RSS syndication, what is streaming called if the link is being distributed through RSS, or you're accessing a stream through a P2P network. It's no longer just a stream, but a syndicated stream?

What's the term du jour for video blogging, for sites like rocketboom.com.

I hope these issues are okay for discussion here. I hate to see statements that the legal issues for podcasting are not yet known. Many - if not all of the legal issues if you're using copyrighted material are law today, whether one likes it or not. If you're interested in the legal issues related to podcasting - review the laws for downloading mp3 files. They are very very much alike. There may be additional SAG, AFTRA and other laws for talent if you have subscribers from many territiories or locations. That's if you work with talent that are in a union.

Cheers - pm vox

Streaming comparison

I think the comparison of streaming media to podcasting is off the mark. While streaming is used for live events, it is also used for Video-On-Demand. Podcasts are saved to one's computer or player, streamed files are not. (Of course I create VOD files that are made available for download via web pages.) The main difference is the delivery method. Clients need to pull a stream off the web rather than waiting for the RSS push. File formats are also different as most streams are delivered as WinMedia, Real or QuickTime. Mpeg formats (mpeg4 in particular) are becoming more popular for video streams, but the big three still rule. BethFell 18:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Revisionist histories

For some reason a person at 82.108.78.107 keeps removing vital material that explains some of the history of the development of podcasting. This has happened in the past, and I just noted it. I reverted the section that the person changed to its original composition. --Buridan

This entry is too long and has too much political weight. This needs to be a simple, understandable discussion of podcasting, which is a trendy term that confuses people who may already be familiar with certain technologies. I see little value in linking to specific podcasting resources, perhaps link only to google or places where podcasts of the readers choice can be found easily. This simple rule will remove the worry over which links get the wikipedia blessing or not. I am strongly against artificially inflating the importance of this article or being overly historic and academic about a term that merely described pre-existing technology. --Author

Yeah okay this story got digged. a quick link, if you come from there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=82.108.78.107 and the http://www.ripe.net/perl/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=82.108.78.107&do_search=Search

Now either Adam did it for ego or else is not part of wikipedia. those where simple modifications most of them about the Dave Winer's case, had he made the script or not. Dave proved he did it, Adam explained he didn't know. Are we done now?

Apparently not. this News story tipped me off, and 82.108.78.107 made another edit a couple of days ago. Not being an expert on podcasting history, I'm not sure how things should read... Keep an eye out for 82.108.*.* since that whole network space is assigned to Adam Curry.[3] -- ke4roh 04:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the history of this should be cut to a minimum as writing so much about this is muddying the whole issue and turning a simple article into one that is self fueling. --Author

Follow-up from Curry: He says he was having trouble figuring out the editing system (and my guess is he had difficulty because the article is so dynamic) and he said the history had become somewhat convoluted here. [4] -- ke4roh 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If anybody's confused about this conversation, note that this thread was started after the one right below here ("pilot error"), even though they are both about the same topic, and covering the same material. -DavidWBrooks 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Pilot Error

According to Adam Curry's blog, the removal of Kevin Mark's contribution was entirly accidental, as it was to be rewritten. The conspiracy theorists can go home now. Play 05:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

interesting.... this is the second time though, doing it once, that's an error... doing it twice that looks a bit less erroneous. Also, in both cases it doesn't appear as if he returned to do the rewriting. but i guess... we should assume good intensions knowing that he has never done anything to mislead in the past.... --Buridan 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Favorite part of his entry: After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out the interface of the editing system I became exasperated and gave up. - DavidWBrooks 11:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we don't have a mindreader, but every one of the four so-called editing errors was in Adam's favor. Would you edit someone you knew out of Wikipedia by mistake and do nothing to correct it? - Rcade 13:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There's an old saying: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I'm happy enough that Curry screwed the pooch w.r.t. Wikipedia, by editing the article at all, in violation of the "no autobiographical edits" policy - see WP:AUTO. I'm still a Daily Source Code listener, and mistakes are a regular part of Curry's life and business... Stereoroid

To be fair, who doesn't make regular mistakes? I know I do. Dan Lovejoy 16:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to be considered a biased source, because he's attacking my integrity on his blog in response to all of this, but Curry has now admitted on the weblog of one of the people he deleted from the podcasting entry that it was intentional [5]. As he commented, "When editing the 'history' I didn't feel this was a significant contribution in the chronology as it did not influence me." Rcade 16:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

History Section Rewrite

I'm proposing a rewrite of the history section, as detailed in this weblog post. I would appreciate feedback before doing so, in order to hopefully head off another edit war. Note that I have no conflict of interest in regards to podcasting. - Shelleyp 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Shelley, I think your proposed refactoring is fair and reflects the contribution of the core key players. I hope you'll go ahead with it and you get past the later entry on your weblog regarding technology writing - Marius (who is simply an interested bystander).

I made the change. I also suggest that the audioblogging people setup a separate topic page for this. Audioblogging is not synonymous with podcasting.Shelleyp 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wikified most of that section and moved the majority of the links down to the notes. --TNLNYC 16:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: History

The history section, even after the rewrite, is getting complicated. Should we have a subsection on it covering the technical development (ie. development of the underlying format), then the development of clients.

Also, should we consider having the precursor part move up before initial development and then have the initial development section called early development? --TNLNYC 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both your suggestions. I think a separate section listing out tool development, as both history and tool chest, would be good and would help people who just want to know what tech is available to use, when was it created, and who created it. And it makes sense to move the precursor up, though part of me thinks we could actually delete that section.Shelleyp 15:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The history section has once again become a collection of contributions made by Dave Winer, most likely because Dave is working the ref so hard over on his blog. No matter how good a state this section reaches, it ends up being pulled back into this. Shelley's rewrite and mine have long since been lost. We could revert back to some half-informative state, but this would be a waste of time. Dave is of course a controversial guy in a Godwin way. Writing about something that involves him requires the same kind of controls that articles about Microsoft need. How is that done on wikipedia? User:Lucas_gonze 20 December 2005 (UTC)

'casting' terminology

The creation of *-casting words to describe podcasting-like distribution of every type of digital file is getting ridiculous. (It's like the way "-gate" gets added to any verb and noun to describe any scandal in Washington, D.C.) I suspect most are used by virtually nobody except the person who thought them up, and who is probably trying to grab the domain name. I urge editors who are more attuned to the field than I be be bold and remove any terminology that is too peripheral. - DavidWBrooks 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Name" section plagiarism?

Okay, what's going on here? I've seen the section under "Name" here for at least several weeks, and today I come across this Forbes article - who is ripping who off? Wikipedia? Forbes? New Oxford? nae'blis _(talk) 19:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Check the history of this page - the "portmanteau" usage was the topic of a minor edit war earlier this year. That terminology dates back many, many months on this site. - DavidWBrooks 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked the history of this passage on my weblog this afternoon: Podcasting: Accept No Imitations

Wikipedia got there somewhen around the 17th July (possibly earlier, that paragraph was getting a lot of fiddling at the time), not November. Joe D (t) 02:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I quoted the November version because Chris Noon lifted it on Forbes.Com. The words portmanteau and misnomer have bounced in and out of Wikipedia since July, but no one has done anything to them from November through Noon's piece. Rcade 12:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, this section has the ambiguous phrase "no broadcasting is required". Can we clarify this? According to the broadcasting article (linked in the paragraph above the one in question), media distributed over the internet fits the definition of broadcasting. So why is the broadcast bit a misnomer? Joe D (t) 02:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lost reference

This was in the notes section, and was probably for something in the technical initial development section. The reference to it has gone though, so I've moved it to here incase anybody can spot a section of text that's supposed to refer to it:

1. ^ Curry, Adam, 27 October 2000. The Bandwidth Issue

Joe D (t) 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

While cleaning up the references to use the new citation system, which will hopefully bring an end to these issues, I came accross:

1. ^ Technology writer Doc Searls had proposed "Personal Option Digital" in September, 2004. The "Personal On-Demand" interpretation (with that capitalization) had been in international circulation as early as October 2004. In July 2005, Microsoft blogger Robert Scoble used that same version when countering reports that his company was pushing the word "blogcasting" to avoid mentioning an Apple product. Scoble, Robert, 2005. "Blogger gives incorrect data about podcasting at Microsoft."

...which isn't referenced at all. Joe D (t) 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Good catch, Joe D. I added an early version of that ref last year; it should be on the phrase "some writers have suggested alternative names" in what is now the "Names" section. Someone had added a digression about "backronyms" that seemed off-topic and may have been deleted, something like the "portmanteau" wars. Sorry, I don't have time to restore the ref or check out this new citation system. (Or, for that matter, to dig up my password and login) Bob. OK, temptation was too great... I went in and repaired both sets of references. The Curry one was to his earlier blog, on a no-longer-in-service server. SameBob

Re: link to podcast

The University of Cambridge podcasts Anatomy lectures. Anatomy Podcasts

The podcast is produced by a lecturer at Cambridge, but the website makes no indication that this is an officially endorsed University of Cambridge product. This link also smacks of spamming. --Kwekubo 01:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this link being removed from the external links?

The following link adds value to the question "what is a podcast". Wikicrusader has removed it. What is wrong with this link? What is a podcast?

It looks like a commercial website to me. Wikicrusader 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please expound? There is nothing for sale on that page. Have you looked at the quality of the content freely offered there? --69.86.70.246 22:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and re-add the link Wikicrusader 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

We have external links to at least five tutorials, all very similar to this. Tutorials were useful a year or even six months ago, but there are hundreds of them on the Web now. Nobody needs help finding them, and if we linked to every one that wanted wikipedia traffic, we'd be swamped ... which this page almost is! I'd suggest removing them all.- DavidWBrooks 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is a tutorial "site", but it is a PAGE with an excellent definition of a podcast that I'm linking to. However, I do think this is one of the most complete and non-tech friendly tutorials available. Maybe we need to decide on some criteria. --69.86.70.246 22:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing against that page/site - it's just that this article has a real problem with too many external links. (Almost as much as the problem it has putting together a history that doesn't offend somebody!)- DavidWBrooks 23:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood. --69.86.70.246 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And now for something completely different. I have removed this link:

• Lusocast Directory of Portuguese spoken language(Portugal, Brazil, etc) podcasts

On the grounds that it probably belongs more in http://pt.wikipedia.org. Joe D (t) 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just gotten rid of a lot of link spam

I've just gotten rid of a lot of link spam from this page. This page really needs to be semi-protected. Samboy 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for cleaning up the external links. It's much appreciated. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the link to "What is a Podcast?". This has been discussed before and it was deemed a good resource. Nothing is being sold on the page. As it states in the comments above the External Links, "External links should explain Podcasting in more depth or from a different angle than Wikipedia can...". This site fits that criteria as it gives a very concise and non-technical definition of podcasting. --69.22.247.14 06:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to talk on this talk page and share your point of view with us. I always welcome new users and the contributions they can make which will improve the Wikipedia.

I encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account and make contributions to the Wikipedia. It is a process that takes less than five minutes, and you do not even need an email address to sign up (we encourage users to supply an email addres so users can privately communicate with them, and so that passwords can be emailed to users that forget them. Wikipedia, I assume you, will never use your email addres to send you spam). However, as you have discovered, you are perfectly free to make edits from your IP.

My concern about the link to http://www.how-to-podcast-tutorial.com/what-is-a-podcast.htm is that this article appears to be a promotion for an ezine instead of a technical article to help people set up podcasts. In particular, the page says "sign up for my free podcasting ezine to get exclusive tips for creating, publishing and promoting your podcast". This appears to be a link that is "added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates", which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Please look at Wikipedia:External_links.

This in mind, I have removed the link. I encourage you to continue making contributions to the Wikipedia and encourage you to add links to the podcasting page which both follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:External_links and follow the consensus on this talk page (Namely: 1. Don't link to non-GPL podcasting software. It is not sufficient to call the software "GPL"; we need to verify that the source code can be downloaded. 2. Don't link to a podcast search engine, but feel free to link to a list of podcast search engines) Again, thank you for your contributions and discussing the issues here. Samboy 20:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am replacing the What is a Podcast link AGAIN on these grounds:

1. It adds to the definition of podcasting.

2. The quality of information should be more heavily considered than nitpicking at minutia of "what is commercial". There is nothing for sale on this site. I can pick at other links that have been submitted (and that you have left on the page) on similar grounds. MyPods.net has Google Adsense at the bottom. But mainly it offers valuable info.

3. Yes this page has a subscription, but so do three of the other links. They have podcasts to subscribe to (e.g. Podcast411 and AMP)

5. This has been discussed before and others agreed to leave the link before you unilaterally removed it.

Thanks. --69.86.70.246 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input. The reason why we are very fussy about links on this page is because so many people want to put their link here. In the case of Podcast411.com, the reason we have this link is because Podcast411 links to a number of sites, including a large number of Podcast411's competitors. As for the AMP link, this, again is a non-commercial interest which helps promote musicians more interested in getting their art out there than in making money. Now, obviously, you are welcome to your opinion. I note that you have reverted my revert; since I follow the Wikipedia:One-revert rule, I will not revert your edit. I can not speak for other editors. Samboy 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Samboy, you said in a previous thread, "people willing to give something away to the community are helping build up the community". Have you looked at the site in question? There is a lot of information (including video, concise definitions and how to) that could EASILY be charged for but are not. Even when you sign up for the email list, you just receive more information (a whole ebook) for FREE. This is why I make myself a champion of this link.

You mentioned that Podcast411 is deserving of inclusion as it links to other valuable resources. So does the site in question. You also state that Podcast411 is justified because it links to "competitors". I'm not sure how Podcast411 can link to competitors and be labeled non-commercial at the same time. That said, I have much respect for Podcast411.

Relating your opinion on AMP, I'm not sure how one can say that the intentions of the musicians who receive promotion and play thanks to AMP all have non-commercial intentions and are purely 'for the art'. But, to go with that logic...the site in question is helping podcasters get their "art" out there.

The point of all this is to say that I find the discusion of commercial or not (when it comes to the link in question) to be arbitrary. In the end, I prefer to base my decision on the merit of the information.

When you consider the value of the information FREELY given on the site containing "What is a Podcast" and all the help that readers of this Wikipedia article will receive from the site, it is clear to me that it is deserving of inclusion. --69.86.70.246 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: I don't think you would be advocating this link if it wasn't a link to your own web page. Samboy 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that the site in question offers resources that are not already offered on this page and its external links. The link seems to be added to promote a site, which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --BG 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first looked at the site it looked like a very suspicious commercial venture. I risked a throw-away email address on registering, and I have to say, it seems to be legit. The "free ebook" is a 38-page creative commons-licensed PDF with good information in it. There's not a scam anywhere that I can see. Given how much the site looks like a spam/get rich quick scheme I have to admit I'm suprised. Anyway, I'd suggest that despite appearances this is actually a pretty good resource. If the site didn't require registration before you could read their "good stuff" I would add the link back myself. Since it does, I won't :) Thparkth 02:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)