Talk:Podcast/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Move to Podcast

Currently, "Podcast" redirects to "Podcasting". Since the article discusses both and Podcast is the more general word (Google: Podcast: 411 million hits vs. Podcasting: 105 million hits]), how about if we move this article to "Podcast", redirect "Podcasting" there and reword the intro sentence a little bit? Sergeyy 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? It will create a TON of redirects with no real purpose, except possible a sort of need for tidiness. Nobody can't find this article right now because of a weird name. - DavidWBrooks 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

How much work it will create shouldn't be a reason not to move. I agree that we should move the article to Podcast. -- Ned Scott 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing against a move if only somebody handles all those redirects and double-redirects. --GunnarRene 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are precedents for both approaches: broadcasting, singing, drinking, radio_programming vs. dance, speech, design, television_program. The change might result in many attempts to rewrite the first paragraph to focus on the noun "podcast" instead of the verb. I think the change would be more trouble than it's worth. Alternative: A disambiguation page for the noun vs. verb, as in broadcast. That also could be the place to disentangle the Oxford definition (any audio "made available" online) and the more technically correct "distributed by subscription feed." Bstepno 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. "Correct" and "lots of work" are two different things. Even if you don't wanna do the work, we can still agree that it would be correct. Let's divide the process. First we agree what is the correct title, then we see how we proceed to fixing it. So, in step one, everybody has agreed so far. Anybody against it - with a reason other than "I think it's a lot of work"? Peter S. 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can YouTube be considered a form as Pod Casting?

Where does youtube fit in? 203.97.2.34 06:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Not as podcasting. It fits in with google video, vlog and video on demand. You can subscribe to videos, but it's not podcasting since there's not a client that automatically downloads videos from a stream. Correct? --GunnarRene 06:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Peter S. 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Applications

I deleted the table of applications. Now, such a list might be somewhat useful, but it's hard to keep current and there are so many podcast applications these days. Also, such lists might attract advertising links to non-notable products. I don't feel strongly about this either way, but my main argument is that the need for currency of information and editorial vetting makes such a table more suitable for a publication in the WP:RS category than in the encyclopedia that everyone can edit; or perhaps in a software directory. Can't we supply links to such sites rather than having to update the information ourselves?--GunnarRene 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's a good example of material that was relevant, due to novelty, when podcasting was new but is now so routine as to not be relevant. - DavidWBrooks 00:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I had added it due to the merge and redirect from Podcatcher, but have no attachment to the list :) -- Ned Scott 06:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There was still a "See also: Podcatcher" listing, which looped back to the podcasting page. I commented it out, but it probably should be deleted if this discussion doesn't shift directions. The History of podcasting page still has references to early podcatching programs, which seems appropriate. So I added a parenthetical cross-ref in the Mechanics section, including an attempt to discourage rebuilding a list.Bstepno 16:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of 'Podcatcher' term?

I'm curious about the merging of "Podcatcher" with the "Podcast" entry. It appears that the merger took place as Podcatcher now redirects. I'll disclose up front the reason for my curiosity: in the original "Podcatcher" entry, it was noted that I coined the term on 10/9/2004. It was coined in a on-line review of Doppler posted on the now defunct PocketPCTools website which can be validated via Google cache. That review became the basis of what I believe is the first print magazine mention of podcasting and podcatchers with a write up on how to listen to podcasts on a Pocket PC. The article hit print in January of 2005: See the February issue of Pocket PC Magazine here.

I've disclosed my personal interest up front in an effort of transparency. However, my ultimate question: is the origin of the term "podcatcher" relevant to this entry or the History of Podcasting entry? If not, no worries. Thanks! KevinTofel 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

One person making up a word in one review does not make a term notable. Personally, I had never even heard of the term until coming across that article (of course I didn't make that my only reason to redirect it). Do we have examples of other notable magazine articles /reviews / etc where the word is used? -- Ned Scott 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand, but I'm surprised you've not heard the term prior to an article that's almost two years old. The word is used to describe numerous podcast aggregation applications as evidenced by a Google search on "podcatcher". Let me ask a different way: what are these podcast-specific aggregators generally called? Perhaps they're just called "aggregators", perhaps not. If the term isn't notable, then there likely shouldn't be two paragraphs devoted to the term in the current Podcasting Wikipedia entry. KevinTofel 15:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Applications? Clients? -- Ned Scott 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Blend (linguistics) vs. Portmanteau

Regarding the latest discussion on the topic;
"oh boy - let's waste time with the "portmanteau" argument again! Me first: It's a pompous term that means nothing to most people, and shouldn't be in an introduction that is supposed to *inform*" -DavidWBrooks

I argue that it better to educate people about the subtleties in language than to just inform them. Plus having fun with words. I really don't care, just thought the intellectuals would get a kick out of it. Linguistic blend is so blah... Since when is using the right word "pompous"? Did you really mean that?
What links to Blend (linguistics) VS. What links to Portmanteau
--Travisthurston 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

People who don't understand English shouldn't be using an English language encyclopedia. Portmanteau is a perectly valid word that accurately describes the subject of the article. We're not in the business of dumbing down content to entertain the ignorant here. --Gene_poole 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that 1000 articles do a silly thing is no reason for No. 1001 to follow suit. "Blend" is also a perfectly valid word that accurately describes the subject of the article, and it has the great advantage of being understood by more people - which is the point of this article. We're trying to inform them about podcasting rather than impress them with our linguistic range.

I don't think using "blend" is dumbing down, I think it's making a reasonable word choice, which is one of the things that writing is all about (speaking as somebody who has made a living writing news articles for 25 years). However, it's also a judgement call, with no right or wrong; both words are correct in a dictionary sense. (The introduction to portmanteau says "In linguistics, these folk portmanteaux are called blends") So despite my annoying Edit Summary yesterday I won't renew the portmanteau edit war of last year. - DavidWBrooks 11:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A blend is what you get when you mix 3 fruits in a juicer. Portmanteau relates specifically to words. If there's a precise term for something we should use it by preference - not substitute some half-assed alternative. --Gene_poole 02:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I never knew what a "portmanteau" was until I started surfing Wikipedia. But the first time I encountered it (don't remember the specific entry), it was immediately obvious by context. I think most people will understand it in context. I think it's fantastic that there is an English word with the precise definition we need in cases like this. And that means we should use the word "portmanteau" whenever it applies (such as "podcast"). BJ Nemeth 22:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Major Cleanup: This really needs a fix

-Apple has very little to do with the term Podcast. They should not have free advertisements including huge images included in this article.

-External links that link to podcasts and podcast directories that can be found outside of the relevant context of this article and would not otherwise merit individual inclusion in wikipedia have been deleted.

-The massive confusion and controversy around the term "podcasting" forces us all to make an open and powerful attempt to neutralize this article.

-Apple currently has legal matters regarding the trademark of the terms pod and podcast. They are issueing C&D orders with questionable cause, wikipedia should not take sides in this issue by supporting Apple's claims.

-POD is an acronym for Portable on Demand. This can be found all over the next, many people, including myself still use this as our definition for the "pod" part of "podcasting".

That this article was flagged as a good article boggles the mind. IT is so riddled with misinformation an easily disprovable notions that it must get a total overhaul. As well as the good article procedure need to be revamped entirely.

Podcasting itself can stand on its own and be fully defined without needing to include Apple or one of many devices that are capable of playing some podcasts. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Products and Companies and the credit they deserve shall not be unsung, however will not be superfluously inserted where business and marketing interests are concerned. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Testerer (talk • contribs) .

I understand what you are trying to get at, but the fact of the matter is the name itself only got picked up and used because of the mass use of iPods, and we all fucking know it. For crying out loud.. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ned Scott, as much as Steve Job's and Adam Curry Might hope this were true, the miracle of podcasting has nothing to do with a plastic mp3 player, it is about the syndication and automation of the process. Let's look a little further back in history. Why did Apple pick the name Pod? Obviously For what it conceptually symbolizes and what the acronym means. If you want to be one of the confused out there who've bought in to the marketing and hype then fine, it doesn't mean that this wiki doesn't need to accurately reflect reality. I've personally never seen any studies or surveys that show that massive use of iPods helped lead to the rise in popularity of the format.

Actually, wide support from Bloggers and end users spreading the concept through word of mouth probably increased the popularity more than any iPod. Again, what % of current Ipod owners listen to podcasts. I bet its far, far lower than you'd imagine.

I've never seen studies of what % of iPod users are active podcast listeners. In fact, Podcasting only became popular once mainstreamers like NPR and the New York Times embraced it as a format. Even today, many studies show that most people listen through their PC and not at all on an ipod. There is plenty of room for Apple to be included in this article but a huge image of their Itunes logo and falsely giving them credit for what was clearly an independent upstart devoid of marketing and commerce. The name was not "picked up" because of massive ipod use. The name was adopted by people who felt it was adequate to describe the technology, but even today, the debate continues. Thus the greater need for neutrality and open debate on this article.

Another huge omission in the article is this notion: Portable On Demand Casting = The act of Podcasting using a portable device to record one's broadcast.

Thank you - Testerer

Examples of why this Articles needs a lot of Work, Please stop just undoing without a fair discussion

Ned, I appreciate your willingness for bold reversals of corrected material, but frankly your information is not currect.

E1: "Usually a podcast features one type of 'show', with new episodes released either sporadically or at planned intervals such as daily or weekly. In addition, there are podcast networks that feature multiple shows on the same feed."

This doesn't describe the term itself, nor is it at all accurate or specific. It is very general and unhelpful in nature. If you wanna discuss OPML feeds etc there is a place for that content in a more appropriate article.

E2: "A Pod by any other name...

Does Apple own the pod? Could podcasting, podcasts, and anything with the word "Pod" in the name become the property of Apple computers? Current legal actions taken by Apple include applying to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the word "pod" as a trademark [2] and filing cease and desist orders with any company using the word "pod" in their title. [3] [4]

In response, technology expert Leo Laporte has suggested changing the name to Netcast. [5]"

OK, This is full of pure speculation and moreover, poor writing. Does Apple own the pod? If you aren't going to include actual information then its not wiki worthy, sorry. It's not. Another huge thing is that this article includes polemics about the name itself rather than focusing on its mechanics. Since you've show complete disregard for my cleanups including reworking the layout of the page, prioritizing the mechanics of the podcasting rather than highling the obviously controversial origin of the term. What does the line about Leo Laporte have to do anything? Again, speculation and nothing substantial.

E3: Apple's Podcasting Logo Must Go.

There is no reason such a company should recieve unfair exposure going so far as to include a trademarked logo in a public and supposedly informative wiki- It's got to go. Unless anyone has a reason for its inclusion I will again delete it. Put the image on the wiki for itunes or Apple but please either make the case for it being kept or respect the evolution of the wiki. All I've seen is wide cut and paste, massive reversals of user (my) additions to this article. I did not do this when I attempted to first clean it up, I made a point and took the time to include the very important information that others before me had given. Might I suggest using a symbol for RSS or XML, something that actually describes podcasting specifically and not a single Podcasting product.

E4: "Podcasting is an automatic mechanism whereby multimedia computer files are transferred from a server to a client, which pulls down XML files containing the Internet addresses of the media files"

This is wrong also. No XML files are pulled down by any aggregators. They are simply read, the feeds are not stored locally which this explanation implies. Podcasting also includes the process of downloading data automatically and then automatically sending it to a device. These files do not need to be "mutlimedia" (assuming you mean mp3, mp4, m4a, etc..) they can in fact be any type of file at all. The explanation is not only technically wrong, its incomplete.

E5: A podcast is generally analogous to a recorded television or radio series.

This is also not really the case, a podcast implies that the content is avaible through a feed for automated download. The content itself might be similiar to TV or Radio but its certainly not analogous in the way this single statement claims. Using the term Podcast makes different assumptions about means of syndication etc..

E6: The feed is a machine-readable list of the URLs by which episodes of the show may be accessed.

Machine-readable? Who wrote this? ;) The mechanics of Podcasting is of course a software solution to a problem, the only machines that come into play are the end devices that may or may not automatically be updated depending on user preference and features of the aggregator.

E7: Consumer enters this feed URI into a software program called a podcatcher, a type of aggregator.

Only a small number of people actually use the term "podcatcher". Podcasters themselves typically do not use this term, nor is a real term (ie: it's a made up term afterall). This is another example of disinformation within this article. How about this as a fix "Consumer uses an aggregator (program designed to read and manage internet feeds) to download podcasts." Why include information that's not really true, and might confuse the average reader.

E8: (Early podcatchers are named in the History of podcasting page, but constantly updating a comprehensive list of software is beyond the scope of these encyclopedia entries.)

Very similiar criticism as the previous example, but even more so, this is written meta that doesn't need to be included, its obvious to anyone that a list of aggregators would not be included on the article about Podcasting. It is redundant, and continues to use the term Podcatcher (Which doesn't even have a wiki article of its' own ((for a reason)) which is disinformative.

E9: "# iTunes Podcast Step by Step

Make Your First Podcast How to Podcast instructions for the beginner.
Lists of podcast directories: CastWiki, Podcast 411, Digital Podcast, Podcasting News
Podcasters Wiki
Podfeed.net's Top 100 A list of the top 100 most subscribed podcasts via Feedburner.
PodcastExpert.com Links to "how to" articles across the Internet on everything from creating RSS feeds to recording equipment"

The External Links section is full of Advertisements and for profit groups that have a personal interest in shaping information related to podcasting. I strongly believe that no website with such a financial stake in this matter merits inclusion under external links. Most of these are for profit groups. Others are not "notable" enough to be included in wikipedia themselves. Podfeed.net is the best example of a link that should not be included because they run advertisements including Google Ads and stand to make more money should they be included on this list.

E10: The bit about Robert Scoble should be removed because its pure gossip and doesn't provide any information. This speculative assertion should moved to the article for Scoble and a discussion on its inclusion needs to take place there.

There are many, many more examples of inaccuracies and disinformation, as well as blantant speculation on a term that isn't actually linked to one person. I hope the discussion can continue and that changes are not made without fair discourse.

thanks- Testerer

While I agree with most of what you brought up, I disagree with the whole issue if ignoring that the iPod effected the name itself. Portable on demand? give me a fucking break. You really think people who use the term pod-casting actually think it means that? Right now I'm not willing to pick through the edits to separate the good from the bad. Your objections to the external links section is based on morals, which is honorable and all, but that's NOT how we do things on Wikipedia. We do not exclude information or attempt to rewrite history because someone made a dollar off of it. Again, I agree with most of your edits, but at the current moment I'm unable to sort through them. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And fortunately its not up to you to sort through it. I don't even know who you are. Again you've just clicked the undo button without making any case? Who are you to say how "we" do things at wikipedia. This is the last time I'm fixing what you keep undoing Ned, If I have to talk to someone else I will. MY objections are not based on morals, they are based on the rules of wikipedia jackass. You can't have blatant advertisements and demonstrably false information in this kind of article. Ned, I'm 100% serious, stop just undoing the progress here, you're basing everything on your opinion and not doing any research.

"Again, I agree with most of your edits, but at the current moment I'm unable to sort through them"

Then leave them the hell alone. POD was an acronym for Portable on Demand long before fanboys like you ever got your hands on an ipod. Just because the marketing worked you, doesn't mean that's reality. I won't let bullheadedness stand in the way of information. Unless you can disprove anything I'm saying, you need to stop your massive reversions. I'm a podcaster. I remember putting copies of the Howard Stern Show on an ancient samsung Yepp long before the 1st ipod was ever thought of.

I gave 10 examples of blatantly bad information and critically flawed elements of this article, all you do is click undo and lob a few curse words? That's not how it works around here Ned Scott.

Either disprove and deal with the changes that have been made, or go elsewhere, stop vandalizing this article Ned AND I appreciate if you lighten the tone and get rid of your "f-you" attitude. It is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and will not be tolerated.

--Testerer

Regardless of who's right - I think the iPod connection is pretty well established, but don't know enough to be certain - the current write-up in embarrassingly sophomoric in its whiny polemic tone. Whoever is responsible should try to rewrite it (which partly means cut it WAY down) like a grown-up, and then they'll have more chance of it being judged on the facts - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, please see WP:NPA. I am not a fanboy, I don't own an iPod, and I don't subscribe to podcasts. But I do know what they are, and I was around when they became big. You calling my actions vandalism is absurd and rude. According to WP:V, a core policy on Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on you, the editor wishing to include the change, not those who seek to remove it. Is Apple a bunch of assholes for trying to copyright "pod"? hell yes, and I wish they wouldn't pull shit like that, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 00:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How's this? It doesn't contain a lot of the original research that was found with both claims, is a lot cleaner, and still includes the rest of your edits. -- Ned Scott 01:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow Ned, I'm really happy with the new edit, I think its nice and clean and really does alot to focus the content on the mechanics and on the "how it works", "what it does" which (imho) is most vital to being informative to any reader. I love the idea of moving the entire naming section to the History article, totally good call on that. Really glad it's turned out to be a superior article, I think I was (reasonably) startled by the um.. "growing pains" it took to come to this point, but that I supposed is only natural on the internet with no real nuance to speak of. Anyways, that's all water under the bridge and I'm glad you decided to go ahead, being bold and edit again, because this time, its a really good article. I noticed you said you don't subscribe to any podcasts, that doesn't mean your not a listener right? Thanks again- Testerer.

Perhaps I'm missing it, but there's no evidence in the article, or the history article, about the "portable on demand" acronym existing pre-iPod. Since it has been claimed in previous discussion that this was a backronym made up after the fact by people annoyed at Apple's dominance, the statement needs some backup or I'm sure it will get removed. - DavidWBrooks 10:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was already included in previous edits made in the last week but with all the shifting I'm not suprised it got overlooked. David, http://www.pods.com/ was founded in 1998, using that acronym years before the ipod debuted in 2002. The acronym can also be found at many acronym finders, try this one. http://www.acronymfinder.com/ Nobody is "bacronyming" here, its evident in reality that Apple chose the name pod for its already understood meaning "a container etc.." but surely they did the research (for legal reasons if no other) and found PODS on the net and probably liked the acronymic value. Fair question, hope its answered. BTW- you can listen to some really old podcasts and the phrase "portable on demand" is also used, those are a bit harder to site as show note evolution is still not on par with the rest of the format. I'm not annoyed at Apple because they certainly don't dominate the podcasting world, a clear majority of people listen on their desktop! ;) -Testerer

Don't try to convince me: convince the readers of the article. (Although I'm not sure what an acronym related to storage containers has to do with MP3 players - unless Apple took the name "iPod" from the Personal-on-Demand acronym they found in other industries? I've always assumed they just chose it because of the sound and look of the machines, but perhaps that's wrong.) As far as I can see, the history article says the first mention of the "pod" name was in 2004 - which supports the theory that it was born out of association with "iPod", not anything else. If that's not correct, the article needs to be changed. - DavidWBrooks 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry David, I must have misunderstood when you wrote "Perhaps I'm missing it, but there's no evidence in the article", I thought you wanted me to help you further understand the article, you know, provide you with the information you asked for. When you wrote "about the "portable on demand" acronym existing pre-iPod", I surely assumed that you wanted to know why someone would think that. That's why I gave you a link to a company (thats rather sizable FWIW) thats embraced the common acronym. You sorta accused people of making up the acronym, using the term "backronym", obviously you can see, the acronym long predates the ipod. Probably the storage company also. Lastly, to your question of "Although I'm not sure what an acronym related to storage containers has to do with MP3 players", I can only tell you than if you hadn't noticed, all mp3 players are type of portable storage container, or pod. It also just happens to be portable on demand. And podcasts themselves are uniquely "portable on demand". You can record a podcast with a device that is portable on demand, like an iriver. This is probably why Apple picked the word pod, because it has a definition based on what we find in nature. They didn't pick the word pod because of the look and sound of their devices, but you might not take my word for it.

I can't make the connection for you, but I hope this clears things up. Wish you weren't so hung up on being sure about where the name came from, nobody is 100% sure, if someone could link to the 1st article that used the term, then the fight would be over, guess what, nobody can. That's why what Ned did to consolodate everything and include a more universal look at the article was so huge, I'm really glad he moved the "name" issue to the History Article. If you didn't know, people have been fighting about Podcast history for almost as long as this medium has been around, not unlike Web 2.0, was it Tim O'reilly or someone else. Either way, it can only matter so much before it becomes to hinder the progress of wikipedia. The fact is, podcasting is a made up combination of 2 words. Pod already has a meaning, Apple just borrowed it, they didn't change its meaning by sticking teh "i" in front, casting is the easy part, we all agree on that, even though its anything but casting the way its works of coures is actually to pull, then push. but ironically we're all fine with that part. One last thing, "born out of association with" isn't definitive at all, that's actually a weaker explanation than the one that's currently in the article. -Testerer

Some refs, just so everybody knows, I'm not the only one on the "Portable on Demand" train.

From the Newsweek Podcasts site: "Think of these podcasts as audio magazine subscriptions or portable on-demand radio shows"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7078547/site/newsweek/

Several Commentors on Engadget feel the same, of course some disagree

http://www.iconnectdots.com/ctd/2006/09/podcast_is_ours.html

From the PodcastAlley.com blog: "Finally, the etymology. While I agree that the iPod helped with the growth of podcasting as a medium, it is not solely responsible for its formation. Stupid as it may sound, I do think more that PODcasting stands more for Portable On Demand than it does any reference to the iPod itself because 90% of the shows I listen to never see my iPod."

http://www.podcastalley.com/blog/2006/08/25/podcasting-in-dictionary-a-few-errors/

Commentors on the Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: "PODCAST= Portable On Demand broadCast."

http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/archives/podcasting/005126.html

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Doug Mills, CITES EdTech Consultant: "Although many trace the "pod" portion of the word "podcast" to the "iPod", others argue that the acronym "POD" standing for "Portable on Demand" predates the phenomenon of podcasting and accounts for the term."

http://www.cites.uiuc.edu/edtech/teaching_showcase/articles/mills/podcasting/index.html

Geek News Central: "we are producing Podcast which stands for Portable On Demand Broadcast."

http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/006424.html#trackbacks

There are lots more, but hopefully this supplements previous links. -Testerer

Why don't you put some of these in the article, instead of here in the talk space? Do you know how to do references? - DavidWBrooks 15:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea David, I'm kinda short on time right now, but later on I'll try and put them into the article. I do have a small problem with the way sources and citations work in wikipedia, that's for another discussion, wish there was a way to cite the source or info without necessarily driving traffic to an external (possibly for profit) site. -Testerer

Guide for new users

This is just a note to say that I'd really like to see here - prominently - a simple guide for people who've heard of podcasting but aren't sure yet exactly what it is or how they can subscribe to podcasts. Shouldn't take too much work, but I'm not very experienced in the area so I'm not sure I'm the best person for the job. Anyone? --Oolong 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not NOT to do that sort of thing - to quote from the list of things that Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Also, there are a bazillion instruction sets for podcasting online; it's not like it's some secret we need to reveal. - DavidWBrooks 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)