Podcasting

http://epeus.blogspot.com/2005/12/of-bloggercon-and-podcasting.html Dave did not invent podcasting. Please read the link. —Nirelan

The text that was in the article does not say he invented podcasting. Your link doesn't say much of anything at all - it provides a link to an audio file, but I can't read that. —Random8322007-01-26 01:34 UTC (01/25 20:34 EST)

do please read the link - I wrote it and never said Dave didn't invent podcasting, he indeed came up with the enclosure element for RSS feeds, and published feeds that included these; I wrote a script to download these into iTunes directly. Lots of people previoulsy talked about automatic downloading; Dave put a big chunk of the infrastructure to do it in place. Kevin Marks 09:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random, read the part that I have quoted "During one of the breaks, I introduced myself and mentioned that I knew he was interested in Audioblogging (as we called it then), and showed him the Python script I'd written to automatically download mp3 enclosures to iTunes. His reaction was that this was cool, and that I should show it off in the Audioblogging session the next day, which I duly did, thanks to Harold Gilchrist making time for me." Don't say that that was not when podcasting was invented unless you can find an earlier podcast.—Nirelan

The statement was about RSS, not about podcasting. Do you even understand what RSS feeds do? --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems self-evident that it existed before, as the quote you're using specifically assumes a pre-existing widespread "Audioblogging" community. I don't see any difference between "Audioblogging" and "Podcasting" apart from the name. The development of a script to allow one piece of proprietary software to automatically get the files doesn't even seem particularly notable, particularly as it involved no changes on the server, and thus not to the creation of any "podcasts" that didn't exist before it was written. —Random8322007-01-26 12:26 UTC (01/26 07:26 EST)

I'll clarify. That is not when podcasting was invented. The description given is of the invention of a way to automatically download podcasts (of which the infrastructure already existed in the form of rss mp3 enclosures) to iTunes. —Random8322007-01-26 12:33 UTC (01/26 07:33 EST)

Random, If it already existed than show me a link.- Nirelan

Random has answered the question. If you are unable to understand the answer, it is self-evident that you are in over your head technically. --Dhartung | Talk 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that podcasting already existed is supported by YOUR link, because if it did not, there would be nothing for the newly-written python script to download. —Random8322007-01-26 18:33 UTC (01/26 13:33 EST)

Random, content from audioblogs are what the newly written program downloaded. So like I said show me an instance of Dave writing a program that automaticly transferd audio content to an mp3 player before the link I posted was written. Read this from the general discussion "Dave said "Pioneered at Harvard just a few years ago, podcasting has been growing at an amazing rate." Therefore all podcasting information should either go to Harvard or Podcasting." Nirelan

Here is another link that decscribes him as "campaigning to be thought of as the creator of podcasting" why would you use that term if the man really invented it. Its easy to tell someone that dosen't know what podcasting is like the media that you invented it but its alot hard to confuse people that really create websites. Nirelan

Let's go through this slowly, because you're setting up false dichotomies and constantly changing the terms of the debate, and that makes it difficult. If you would be more precise this Talk page would not be so contentious.

• First, the blog post from Marks is objecting to Adam Curry's claims, not Winer's. The CNet story he's reacting to also says it is Curry's claims (and Wikipedia edits) that were suspect. The article doesn't bring up false claims by Winer, although it would seem an opportune time to do so if that was how the author felt.
• Second, our article does not say Winer was the "creator of podcasting". Please don't argue that we say that when we don't. It says "Winer was the first to implement the feed "enclosure" feature that made podcasting possible." He took the existing spec (may have played with it some, there was much back-and-forth about this at the time) for how RSS feeds -- a subtype of RDF file -- could notify RSS clients (such as browsers, or later iTunes) of the availability of a new downloadable file such as an MP3 podcast. It was left to the implementers of RSS server software to make their feeds do this, and of course clients also needed the feature. As owner of Userland, Winer went ahead and implemented the feature in Manila/Radio and the Radio Userland client. Perhaps to Dave this is "inventing podcasting", but what he thinks in his mind is not at issue in our article, because our article describes a factual event -- "first to implement" -- with verification provided by a reliable third-party source.

Basically, it looks as if you're upset that Dave or anybody else somewhere is claiming he is the creator of podcasting, so you want to remove any claims relating to podcasting from our article, even if they are properly sourced. I suggest you complain to the people making those claims, or better yet, ignore them. If you really want to be helpful, you could research specific times that Dave has said something and somebody else has said something else, and put those into the article in the form "Winer has frequently said X, but K has said Y." --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion

Dave said "Pioneered at Harvard just a few years ago, podcasting has been growing at an amazing rate." Therefore all podcasting information should either go to Harvard or Podcasting.

How do you differentiate the terms?... UserLand, Manila, Frontier, Radio. Does Manila refer to the city?... What's the origin of the use of each of these terms?... --User:Donwarnersaklad 9 December 2005

UserLand Software is a name of a corporation. Manila, Frontier and Radio are product names offered by this company. An explanation of these products should go on the UserLand Software corporation page -- redirects or disambigs if necessary on the terms themselves. The details of such products and corporations should not go on the Dave Winer biography page. --Ben Houston 20:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to touch this entry because of a professional relationship with Dave, but I think the first paragraph should have a sentence like this: "He created or was a lead contributor to several of the most popular XML dialects and APIs related to web publishing, including RSS 2.0, XML-RPC, OPML, and the MetaWeblog API." Rcade 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose an edit to the sections that discusses Mr. Winer's history at Harvard and his contributions to podcasting. Both are very sparse and there is a significant opportunity to tie together the concepts. During Mr. Winer's time at Harvard, he worked with several people inside and outside of the university to encourage them to record audio and distribute it using RSS--podcasting as we know it today. Is there a viable way to document this with the Podcasting content.

Also, the podcasting content focuses too much on Winer vs. Curry and instead should talk more about the establishement of the enclosure element of RSS 2.0 and specific examples Mr. Winer's evangelism of it's use.

(Due to my relationship with Dave, I can not make any of the edits directly) --User:Skirks December 21, 2005

Discussion about Dave Winer article, from which Danny Ayers has removed all his own comments

I made a change to the first sentence of this entry, betsythedivine removed it. I left the reversion and tried to make a case, but my arguments weren't accepted by betsy. I have removed my comments because my neutrality of point of view was disputed. Life's too short. Danja 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The original changes Danja made to Dave Winer's bio. Danny, I accede to your wish to delete all your own comments here, but a Wikipedian who wants to make sense of this section's discussion can easily find any past state of this talk page from its history. betsythedevine 01:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, hello, anonymous person who considers Dave Winer's major contributions to many fields a matter of dispute. The description you prefer would seem more suited to someone who had very little impact on web publishing. Furthermore, I'm not sure that you improve the information content of Wikipedia by removing the actual names of the the stuff he worked on. The "reliable history" you reference doesn't look like what Wikipedia would consider a source of encyclopedia quality. I will look for some sources of such quality when I get a chance; maybe a direct quote from one of them will solve this problem while avoiding issues with the Wikipedia "No Original Research" policy. betsythedevine 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Danny. I'm moving this discussion of Dave Winer's bio from my talk page to the talk page of that article. It's a public page on Wikipedia, and I am only one of many editors trying to keep it in good shape. Since nobody seems to think it violates Wikipedia Good Faith when people point out that I'm a friend of Dave Winer, surely it is also appropriate to note your own relationship to him--for example, your blogpost saying that others have called you a stalker of Dave Winer, while he has called you "abusive and persistent and stupid as dirt." [1] I do not think that Dave Winer's bio summary was improved by your removing the list of dialects and APIs to which he has made major contributions, and with which his name is widely associated. And, during more than a month since I made that change, not one Wikipedia editor has agreed with your attempt to whittle down his technical history into "... contributed to several popular dialects and APIs related to web publishing"--that is, nobody has reverted my reversion. Furthermore, the actual degree to which Dave did or did not contribute to any of these subjects is a matter for the body of the biography, not the summary, and perhaps for the articles on those dialects/APIs themselves. betsythedevine 16:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danny--The "facts regarding this Wikipedia page" are that 1) removing information from the biography of somebody who has publicly insulted you is usually a bad idea (WP:NPOV) and 2) the (well-attested and long-standing) information you took out went well beyond items whose factual basis you dispute. You yourself state in this discussion thread that Dave Winer created MetaWeblog API and OPML, and that he "was a lead contributor to XML-RPC." Therefore your quarrel with the statement that he "created or was a lead contributor to several of the most popular XML dialects and APIs related to web publishing: RSS 2.0, XML-RPC, OPML, and the MetaWeblog API " boils down (in your own defense of it) to 1) you don't consider him a lead contributor to RSS 2.0 and 2) you don't like XML-RPC, OPML, or the MetaWeblog API. I've read quite a lot of the deeply partisan special pleading assembled by one side or another in the various RSS 2.0-RDF-Atom wars--interestingly, Dan Libby's own analysis is mellow and thoughtful, acknowledging major influence from Dave and Userland on his own changes between 0.9 and his 0.91: [2] But Wikipedia strongly favors the use of published, reputable sources rather than personal interpretations of "historical documents" WP:NOR. BTW, here's something else I'd like to see more of in this biography-- the colorful and ongoing triumph of web feeds in general, much of their success fueled by Dave Winer's evangelism for RSS 2.0--for example, the adoption of RSS 2.0 by the New York Times and their agreement to stop hiding articles in their pay-for-it archive so long as those articles are accessed by a link to the RSS feed, or the use of enclosures in RSS 2.0 for podcasting. betsythedevine 03:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See note above. Danja 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored your comments--they ought to remain on this talk page--and I think the balance between our POVs will be useful to future editors. As for my editing Dave Winer's bio "to his glory", I do take NPOV seriously. If you look at my edits to this page, I've mostly stuck to reverting vandalism by others, except for the time I spent working to help another editor create balance in the section on Dave's "Relationship to the Public." betsythedevine 03:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy is to sign and date edits to the discussion page--just type 4 tildes at the end, if you're signed in. I think anybody with as many achievements as Dave Winer would have to be self-deludingly over-modest not to consider himself pretty darn smart. And his achievements include not only technical work on stuff like RSS but also various kinds of productive outreach like years of blogging, running the first BloggerCon, reinventing the way conferences are run, promoting RSS to major media, etc. You claim Dave's motivation is pure self-promotion--I disagree. (Though isn't everyone entitled to want to do some self-promotion? Would you like to discuss whether or not you ever engage in self-promotion yourself?) In my opinion, Dave Winer considers himself to have an important role as an advocate for users, something a lot of other developers in his (and my) opinion don't think about as often as they should. It's this crusading mentality that underlies his work with Userland, his promotion of RSS, his attempts to make conferences more about the audience and less about speakers or sponsors. BTW, it's funny that people who slam Dave for creating a fork in RSS are never the same as the people who slam the Atom-group for creating a fork in RSS. betsythedevine 02:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How encyclopedia-quality sources describe Dave Winer's role wrt SOAP, RSS, blogging, etc.

BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK Microsoft's New Operating System Is the First Part of Expanded Internet Services By STEVE LOHR (NYT) 1435 words Published: October 22, 2001 ... "Microsoft's pitch to developers is greatly weakened because of that," said Dave Winer, co-author of SOAP and chief executive of UserLand, a developer of Web tools. [3]

BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK TECHNOLOGY; A Rift Among Bloggers By DAVID F. GALLAGHER (NYT) 1192 words Published: June 10, 2002

"I talk about things Glenn Reynolds doesn't understand, but that doesn't mean they're not important things to talk about," said Dave Winer, founder and chief executive of UserLand Software, whose Scripting News (scripting.com) is one of the oldest blogs.

New Food for IPods: Audio by Subscription By CYRUS FARIVAR 
Published: October 28, 2004, Thursday [4] Mr. Curry's Daily Source Code, a two-month-old show mainly on technology-related subjects, has inspired other podcasters to follow his lead. He came up with the idea for podcasting nearly four years ago, but it wasn't until he spoke soon thereafter with Dave Winer, an early blogger and the inventor of R.S.S., that Mr. Winer was able to modify R.S.S. so that it could support enclosed audio files.

I hope this brief collection of NYT material is useful to other editors. betsythedevine 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original RSS 0.9 specification, author - Dan Libby. I hope this is useful to editors that prefer facts to a good story. Danja 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, for comparison, the RSS 2.0 specification [5]. Channel elements in RSS 2.0 but not in RSS 0.9: language, copyright, managingEditor, webMaster, pubDate, lastBuildDate, category, generator, docs, cloud, ttl, rating, skipHours, skipDays. Many of these elements reflect enormous changes in the ways RSS was used as it became more popular. Item elements in RSS 2.0 but not in RSS 0.9: description, author, category, comments, enclosure, guid, pubDate, source. Note in particular the importance for blog-RSS of the new tags "category" and "description", as well as the importance to podcasting of the "enclosure" tag. I hope this is useful to those who have been told again and again that Dave Winer's RSS 2.0 adds nothing of value to Dan Libby's RSS 0.9. By the way, Dan Libby describes himself as "the primary author of the RSS 0.9 and 0.91 spec" [6]. Dan Libby does not describe himself as the creator of RSS 2.0.betsythedevine 04:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pointer to RSS 0.9 was to demonstrate the original authorship of RSS (primarily Dan Libby). Virtually all the elements you list appeared in Netscape's RSS 0.91. The only significant exceptions I believe being "guid" and "enclosure". "guid" corresponds to rdf:about in RSS 0.9 and 1.0. "enclosure" was an addition, but (at least from the viewpoint of RSS 0.9 and 1.0), a redundant one. The media type of a resource on the Web can be determined via HTTP, in that context the additional element acts as little more than a hint. (A good reference for the changes is http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/02/04/incompatible-rss). If you look at the origins of the idea of RSS, then there are plenty of precursors, most significantly Apple's MCF, Microsoft's Channel Definition Format (which had many of the same elements as RSS, albeit in upper case, and used polled-HTTP delivery).

External links discussion

Bloglines

Removed Bloglines from the list of tools that get Weblogs.com's pings. Just got a comment on [7] saying that Bloglines doesn't use Weblogs.com's pings. --Nick Douglas 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eye on Winer

In the external sites section the links to Eye on Winer, I'm Not Dave seem to be sites using wikipedia and winers content to generate google ad revenue. I'm for removing them. 70.20.13.215 20:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Google Ads on those pages -- did they just remove them? "Eye on Winer" has been around for a while and I don't think it made to troll wikipedia or for the sole point of profit. I think the sites are problematic because the author doesn't identify themselves -- but that is also the case with you, thus I guess you can't complain. (edited) --Ben Houston 21:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a shitty way to argue Ben. The poster didn't complain that "Eye on..." was anonymous -- you did. 128.148.37.31 19:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't arguing with him specifically. I was adding that I honestly think the "Eye on Winer" page is problematic because it is anonymous. I find that it is too easy to hide being anonymity when attacking others -- it makes it to easy to be irresponsible and unfair. --Ben Houston 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"thus I guess you can't complain." is just plain silly. If the comment has reliable information (In fact, it appears to be incorrect. I see no ads.) that is in-line with the goals of wikipedia, then it should be heard. Attacking the fact that is anonymous, while it may be one of your pecadillios, is not grounds for rejecting the comment. Further, anonymous sites linked on the main page are quite a different thing than anonymous comments on the talk page -- wouldn't you agree? 128.148.37.31 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I am arguing about. I must admit that I am confused. I'm going to drop it. --Ben Houston 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor 70.109.203.200 replaced the above with the following comment: "In the external sites section the links to Eye on Winer & I'm Not Dave are anonymous but deemed relevant." I reverted this because I don't think it fully summarizes the discussion. If someone wishes to archive and properly summarize this discussion, please do so. Aapo Laitinen 14:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Since Dave did not create blogging or RSS should this page be maintained. I am not against a wiki for RSS, Blogging, or even userland. However, I do not know if simply claiming to be an early adopter of something is enough to have an article written about you. Please do not take this as an insult to anyone.--User:Nirelan

I removed the {{db-spam}} as the article is not blatant advertising. If you believe that the article should be deleted, please list it through an AfD. Note that I am not stating my opinion on whether the article should be deleted, just what procedure you need to follow. -- Gogo Dodo 08:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Wikipedia is supposed to use independant sources this page is made based on information from Mr. Winers own website. That is clearly a violation of the wikipedia guidelines including sources must be written from a neutral point of view, and the no original researchpolicy. That means it violates two of only three content policies.--User:Nirelan

Your claim that "this page is made based on information from Mr. Winers own website" is contradicted the long and diverse history of this article. Furthermore, over the past several days your assault on this entire article--blanking it, marking it as spam, removing informative and appropriate material, etc.--have not improved its quality. I hope other editors will join me in trying to restore the informative and appropriate content on which many previous editors labored and achieved consensus. betsythedevine 05:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

You're still free to list on AfD, but I've replaced your {{prod}} with citation templates. I think the article should be improved, not deleted. (IMO you've also severely misinterpreted both the NPOV and NOOR policies) —Random8322007-01-23T20:59:39UTC(01/23 15:59EST) PS I only added {{self-published}} because I feel it embodies your complaint, I haven't taken the time to look into the claim itself.

-

This page shouldn't be deleted - Winer is a person of note ("Almost Famous" as Wired had it). A while ago I objected to certain inaccuracies (see discussion with Winer's friend Betsy above), but the page now seems considerably better on that front scratch that, the bits I objected to have returned. Some technical points are still questionable, e.g.

He was the first to implement the feed "enclosure" feature that made podcasting possible

Winer played a significant role in promoting podcasting, but podcasting is entirely possible without this "feature" (c.f. Atom). In general the reported information still leans somewhat to that which favours Winer, for example it contains :

Cluetrain Manifesto co-author Doc Searls, a long-time friend of Dave Winer, expressed the sense of indebtedness shared by many of Winer's admirers...

There's no mention that another of the three Cluetrain Manifesto co-authors, Chris Locke, called Winer "that asshole" trying to set a Googlebomb with that string. http://www.rageboy.com/2003_10_05_blogger-archive.html

Danja 20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danja, that section was an attempt to balance some notable POVs on Dave Winer, and to keep it brief, in response to the advice of Wikipedia admins. I don't think Chris Locke's prank was as notable or informative as the anti-Dave comments that were included. betsythedevine 05:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line "indebtedness shared by many of Winer's admirers" is sentimental claptrap which I don't think has any place in an encyclopedia (not even for Mother Theresa). Is this gushing really balanced by a single critical comment? (Bray's comment actually praises Winer). Locke's prank is from a very similar source as the positive remark and demonstrates this isn't the only view. You'll note I didn't add Locke's comment to the page, I just wanted to show how this page is still primarily a fan club mouthpiece. Presumably it will remain so while he has a friend here to champion his point of view. (I'm ducking out again - I only wanted to say deletion isn't the solution to the problems of this page). Danja 10:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the phrase "indebtedness shared by many of Winer's admirers"--though it's obvious that many of Winer's admirers agree with Doc. Also that some of his detractors try to remove some or all of Winer's contributions to technology or blogging. My intention for this article, as for the many others on my Wikpedia watchlist, is to maintain a source of fair, balanced, notable information about its subject. betsythedevine 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the "that asshole, dave winer" thing is not a googlebomb. It's an attempt to establish a count of bloggers who dislike him by google hit count, whereas a google bomb is an attempt to make a page the top hit for a search result by consistently including the phrase with the target page linked. A googlebomb would be, for example, if he tried to make a page trying to describe how much of an asshole Winer is the top hit for "Dave Winer" by getting everyone to put that link on every single time they mention him. —Random8322007-01-28 18:32 UTC (01/28 13:32 EST)

I stand corrected (and note the current count is about 20,000) Danja 21:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the current count for for Rageboy's prank phrase [8] "that asshole Dave Winer" [9] is apparently 41--they show 21 blogposts, with 20 more "very similar." betsythedevine 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rageboy's test query on that page is : http://www.google.com/search?q=asshole+%22Dave+Winer%22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danja (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here's how Rageboy himself described the phrase he wanted to propagate: "OK, now here's how the game works. Simply place the exact string 'that asshole, Dave Winer' somewhere on your blog." [10]. If you click the post's title slug, as RB recommends, there's a Google search for that exact four-word string: [11] You get 18 supposedly unique results, of which at least 4 are by RB himself. betsythedevine 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section removals

This section was called "Bad faith edits?", renaming it because at this point it seems uncivil (Random832 19:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I believe that this edit was made in bad faith, because your {{prod}} reason was that there were no external sources, and the section you deleted contained external sources. —Random8322007-01-23T21:15:05UTC(01/23 16:15EST)

That edit had nothing to do with wether or not I think the article should be deleted. Wikipedia is for facts not opinions. When that section provides a fact about Dave it can be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirelan (talk • contribs)

"Winer is known as one of the more polarizing figures in the blogging community" seems factual enough to me - whether it's correct, I don't know, but fact vs opinion is a different matter. —Random8322007-01-23T21:42:03UTC(01/23 16:42EST)

I fully admit you have sources for that section , but having a source dosent mean something is worth being in Wikipedia. Statements from co workers definatly shouldn't be included.-- Nirelan

Is it ok for me to leave the banner there with yours present until the article is fixed?--Nirelan

An edit summary would have been helpful - I did honestly think at that time that you intended to go for an AfD (not that you're not still free to do that) with the same reason as you gave in the prod, and were just deleting sections to make the article worse. I still think the section should be improved rather than deleted wholesale, but I'll accept that your edit was in good faith. —Random8322007-01-23T22:53:22UTC(01/23 17:53EST)

I will give you the requried five days to fix the article and I'm sorry if I am being too harsh on this subject, but I feel that the article should be deleted until a relible source can be found. I know that to people who have no expierence in the tech world his contibutions seem signifigant, but he is the owner of a company and only promotes products his company uses. Therefore no article should be based upon what he says. Its like making an article about Windows based on speeches from Microsoft executives. If he would have made RSS or Blogging or something I can accept an article being based on him, but can you honestly tell me that an encyclopedia article can exist only upon the words of someone who is trying to sell a product? --Nirelan

Please look at the long and diverse history of this article [[12]] -- then withdraw your strange assertion that it's written by Dave Winer or based on his writings. Links to his own writings are given here only because they might be of interest to people who have clicked through to read an article about Dave Winer. betsythedevine 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What required five days? You don't get to re-add a {{prod}} after it's been removed. If you want it gone, you have to go through the AFD process and actually substantiate your arguments against this article. —Random8322007-01-24T00:45:39UTC(01/23 19:45EST)

If I haven't substantciated my arguments tell me one thing that makes this noteable. This is hype perpatrated on the site of a man that owns a company. There is even a whole section pertaining to what his co workers said about him. The wikipedia guidelines clearly state that numerus third parties need to refrence the subject to make it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.98.208 (talk • contribs)

eweek and wired and oreilley don't count? those were all linked from the article —Random8322007-01-24T03:04:31UTC(01/23 22:04EST)

Random, the eweek story and the Weblogs.com info needs to be a seperate article. As for the Wired and Oreilly stories I don't know if they should count because as someone that sells tools to the tech media he has a business relationship with these people.-- Nirelan

If you cannot substantiate an actual business relationship, then you are just speculating. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Weblogs.com its own article and Userland Software has one. This article just feels like it is opinions on the topics of the forementioned articles from Dave. -- Nirelan

In that case, you should work to change this article to make it more neutral. Nominating it for deletion is a statement that you think that he doesn't deserve for there to be an article about him, not that you think the article has problems. As for CNN/Eweek - I really think you should check out WP:NN. And, well, of course most of the media references on a tech subject are going to be tech media - I don't think that's sufficient to create a conflict of interest, at least not in terms of notability; these are professionals we're talking about. And "feels like" isn't much of a reason - there's plenty in this article that doesn't come from him. But, even at face value, your complaint is a POV issue, not something worth nominating it for deletion over. —Random8322007-01-24T19:14:44UTC(01/24 14:14EST)

Thanks Random, I agree that an article could be made here, but I don't think it should be done by repeating what is in other articles like the Userland Section does. I also don't think we should have opinions of co workers. Read his latest post on Wikipedia http://www.scripting.com/2007/01/24.html#stateOfWikipedia. This article definatly needs the cleaning up I am trying to do.—Nirelan

Removing as much material as you have verges on vandalism. Wholesale removal, what you and an anon editor have done, eliminates context and presents a disjointed timeline. The accepted way to introduce material better covered in other articles is with summary style, where two or three paragraphs, for example, are condensed to one, then using a template such as {{main}} to point the reader at the article where the material is covered in greater depth. --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to the Public section

The history of the article on Dave Winer goes back before my time, but I do know the history of the "Relationship to the Public" section. A year or more ago, somebody deleted a similar section heavy with "original research" and called, non-neutrally, "Criticism of Dave Winer." After a brief edit war (I suggested the compromise of putting the material into the talk page but was over-ruled), Wikipedians suggested a short section of direct-quote criticisms from verifiable sources balanced by a short section of defenses also from verifiable sources. betsythedevine 23:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that backstory, betsythedevine. Several recent AFDs have allowed articles titled "Criticism of X" to exist as subarticles, so I don't think that is out of bounds as a section heading. It's probably best to integrate into the article what is pertinent where possible, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the AFD if we make this an article about facts and not just a list of friends or enemies Dave has in the computer world. --NirelanTalk

I am deleting it because it is simply unpressidented. Please find one other article about a programmer that has an section like that. --NirelanTalk

Removed podcasting mention

An IP keeps removing this:

He was the first to implement the feed "enclosure" feature that made podcasting possible.<ref>"Podcasting: The latest buzz". ITworld.com. October 27 2004. Retrieved 2007-01-25. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>

Please explain this removal (I don't want to get into an edit war or I'd have put it back.) —Random8322007-01-26 23:29 UTC (01/26 18:29 EST)

I didn't remove the line, but it is inaccurate and misleading and should be removed, or at least substantially modified. The RSS 2.0 enclosure element is neither necessary or sufficient for podcasting (the same role is covered in Atom and for that matter RSS 1.0). Winer did add this element to RSS 2.0, but the facility it provides was already available in web standards (any URI/link can potentially have a media object representation, and hence act as an enclosure, this can be determined using HTTP content negotiation). The promotion of the podcasting mode of media delivery (in which Winer played a major role) was considerably more significant than any implementation detail. Danja 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a compromise version acknowledging the importance of other elements - and note that the claim is that he was the first to implement the feature (the link goes to a RSS-specific article, but the text is talking about the enclosure feature in general for all types of feeds), not that he was the only one ever - did atom have this feature before he implemented it? But, anyway, what do you think of my compromise wording, and would you like to suggest any further changes? —Random8322007-01-28 18:16 UTC (01/28 13:16 EST) PS I also think your "any URI/link" claim is a bit specious - are you saying that there's no usefulness to <img>, <object>, or <embed> over <a> or <link> in html?

Random832, your compromise wording on enclosures keeps the fact of Winer's contribution while removing the "judgment call" element--that should satisfy NPOV claims. The first podcasters used RSS 2.0. Could they instead have used RSS 1.0 or Atom? The answer to that hypothetical question has little to do with podcasting and zero to do with a biography of Dave Winer. betsythedevine 21:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Outside 24 hour period:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=prev&oldid=102929732 Deleted, 70.110.249.4 (not disputed to be him as not logged on), no explanation
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=102929808&oldid=102929732 restored, Scimitar, admin rollback button

Within 24 hours:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=103479289&oldid=103478983 deleted, "Opinions dont belong here"
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=103490840&oldid=103480473 restored, Random832 per previous consensus
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=103503112&oldid=103490840 deleted 71.244.210.205 (not disputed to be him as not logged on), "Wikipedia is not a journal of opinion"
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=103503187&oldid=103503112 restored, TomPhil, meaningless WP:VPRF VP edit summary
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=103505464&oldid=103503187 "Form your own opinion"
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Winer&diff=103530924&oldid=103525890 restored, Betsythedevine, per previous consensus

You have not sought a consensus on this issue and you have not addressed the fact that there was a previous consensus on this section. Your next attempt to delete this section WILL be a violation of the 3RR. —Random8322007-01-27 03:30 UTC (01/26 22:30 EST)

note that consensus wasn't really reached on that last restoration by Betsythedevine. I removed this misleading line a long time ago, but Betsythedevine restored it. She questioned my neutral pov (because Winer has publicly insulted me in the past), so I withdrew. I questioned hers (she is a personal friend of Winer), she didn't... Danja 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the restoration of the relationship to the public section, not any other stuff that might be included in that diff. The restored text of that section was not different in that restoration than in any of the other three, so it's not clear what you mean. —Random8322007-01-28 18:24 UTC (01/28 13:24 EST)

User:Nirelan removed the AfD banner from this page

On 26 January User:Nirelan removed the AfD banner from this page. I tried to explain to him that it's considered vandalism. (See exchange at User_talk:Nirelan and User_talk:EdJohnston#Winer_AFD). He believes it is fine for him to personally close the AfD debate, and he has followed the steps. I will leave it to more experienced people to try to explain to him how the system works. EdJohnston 04:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the nomination on his behalf (well, on the behalf of an IP no-one is disputing is him), I'm willing to withdraw it on his behalf if that's what it takes. —Random8322007-01-27 04:14 UTC (01/26 23:14 EST)

As he is the nominator, this is a bit inappropriate, but it isn't vandalism. Nominators are allowed to withdraw their own nominations as a speedy keep. When nominators remove AFD notices in pages, it is treated as intent to withdraw. Removing someone else's AFD is still vandalism, just not your own. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well - this case is a bit more complicated than that, since, first of all, he wasn't logged in when he added the template, and, second, he botched it and I had to finish the process - which means that even though he's clearly the one who wants it deleted, I'm apparently "technically" the nominator and even if we take my statement that I'm definitely nominating it for him, he wasn't logged in. Though, probably the best thing would be to Ignore all rules and treat him as the nominator. —Random8322007-01-27 06:32 UTC (01/27 01:32 EST)

Repairing vandalism to this article

Looking back at this article's pre-AFD state ([13]), I notice that two entire sections have vanished during the recent edit war: "Contributions to podcasting" and "Weblogs.com." I am going to restore these two missing sections from the article as it stood on January 24--not because I contend they were perfect but because that's what was here. betsythedevine 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the Weblogs.com was (if a bit clumsily) split out into its own article, then someone rewrote other sections to fill in the gaps. —Random8322007-01-29 18:42 UTC (01/29 13:42 EST)

Latest dispute

Nirelan replaced the page with the following.

I am sorry that I have to take this course of action, but please stop trying to associate Dave with technologies that he did not create. Reverting this article is simple so do not get mad about the change just give people time to read the message than revert the article and fix it.

1. Dave played no role in creating RSS. Netscape did that.

2. Dave was certainly not one of the first bloggers.

3. He did not create podcasting or anything associated with it. Read the talk page.

"He was the first to implement the feed "enclosure" feature that made podcasting possible.^[1] Please explain this removal (I don't want to get into an edit war or I'd have put it back.) —Random8322007-01-26 23:29 UTC (01/26 18:29 EST)

I didn't remove the line, but it is inaccurate and misleading and should be removed, or at least substantially modified. The RSS 2.0 enclosure element is neither necessary or sufficient for podcasting (the same role is covered in Atom and for that matter RSS 1.0). Winer did add this element to RSS 2.0, but the facility it provides was already available in web standards (any URI/link can potentially have a media object representation, and hence act as an enclosure, this can be determined using HTTP content negotiation). The promotion of the podcasting mode of media delivery (in which Winer played a major role) was considerably more significant than any implementation detail. Danja 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) "

1. Dave played no role in creating RSS. Netscape did that.

   You have not supported this claim sufficiently. --Random832(tc) 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Dave was certainly not one of the first bloggers.

   You have not even ATTEMPTED to define or support this claim.

3. He did not create podcasting or anything associated with it. Read the talk page.

   THE ARTICLE DOES NOT CLAIM HE CREATED PODCASTING NOR ANYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH IT! --Random832(tc)

02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Random if you do not know these things you are not qualified to write about them.

1. 1. RSS: If your read the RSS wiki or any other articles on RSS you will see that it was created there.

1. 2. Dave is not one of the first bloggers : If you read the Blogging wiki it clearly talks about blogs being around long before Scripting News. So does this site http://www.blockstar.com/blog/blog_timeline.html.

1. 3. Podcasting: The article has a contributions to podcasting section when the comment I posted clearly shows he did not make a contribution.--Nirelan

It's also worth noting that Danja's objections were addressed - the line that was removed was later "substantially modified" to de-emphasize the importance of Winer's contributions. --Random832(tc) 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirelan persists in failing to understand what a talk page is for: This page may state that Dave has done some things that even other wikipedia pages prove that he did not do.

• 1.RSS: The RSS wiki clearly states that Netscape created RSS.

"RDF Site Summary, the first version of RSS, was created by Ramanathan V. Guha of Netscape in March 1999 for use on the My Netscape portal."

• 2.Blogs: Dave did not invent the blog nor was he one of the first bloggers. The history section of the blog wiki starts at 1994 which was 3 years before Dave started his blog. This site also provides a timeline of blogs that begins long before Scripting News http://www.blockstar.com/blog/blog_timeline.html.

• 3. Podcasting: Dave did not make make podcasting possible. This article's discussion section proves that. I do not understand how something can remain when it was disproven in a talk page for the article it is on.

"He was the first to implement the feed "enclosure" feature that made podcasting possible.[1] Please explain this removal (I don't want to get into an edit war or I'd have put it back.) —Random8322007-01-26 23:29 UTC (01/26 18:29 EST)

I didn't remove the line, but it is inaccurate and misleading and should be removed, or at least substantially modified. The RSS 2.0 enclosure element is neither necessary or sufficient for podcasting (the same role is covered in Atom and for that matter RSS 1.0). Winer did add this element to RSS 2.0, but the facility it provides was already available in web standards (any URI/link can potentially have a media object representation, and hence act as an enclosure, this can be determined using HTTP content negotiation). The promotion of the podcasting mode of media delivery (in which Winer played a major role) was considerably more significant than any implementation detail. Danja 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC) "

The article does not claim that Dave first created RSS - do you deny that he had substantial involvement in later versions? The article does not claim that Dave invented podcasting. And, you are assuming that your POV on what "one of the first" must mean for blogs is fact. --Random832(tc) 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References for the 'Contributions to Podcasting' section

Someone put up the 'unreferenced' banner in this section. There is a blow-by-blow timeline in History of podcasting for 2003 and 2004 with a ton of references, at least links to blog postings. Some of those references could be brought over here. I think it's reasonable to accept a blog posting at least as evidence of the poster's views, if not as confirmation of external facts. EdJohnston 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nirelan

I'm really trying to be patient with you. You've raised some valid points about how things are phrased, and I've tried to change the article to be more clear about these. I don't understand the view you seem to have that because he wasn't the original author, his contributions to RSS as it stands today are insignificant; or that because the feature he first implemented was only one piece of the puzzle, podcasting should not be mentioned in this article at all. But i'm still trying to work with you - please see the latest version of the article - is there any way you think things should be made more clear? What do you think of the changes I've made to address your objections? --Random832(tc) 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. please read WP:SUMMARY for why you shouldn't just be blanking sections entirely when the bulk of the content should be split into its own article.[reply]

Random, I have a problem because in this article you talk about Dave saying he made RSS popular ,even thought it was made and promoted by a major company, yet on the Ramanathan V. Guha page inventing RSS is basicly a footnote. I don't understand how one man telling people to use it deserves more text in an article than is given to the inventor of the technology. I have given you the name of the technology's inventor and therefor proven that Dave did not invent and does not control RSS. He has nothing more to do with it than you or I do yet you still insist on trying to word the article as if he has some controlling connection to RSS. If the man didn't make RSS he didn't make it. The only reason to associate him with it is to make him sound important enough to have an article.

• Blogging: It is clearly known that he didn't invent blogging, yet you still want to tie him to it by using words like pioneered or was one of the first to blog. The blog wiki clearly begins the history section in 1994 while this article says Dave started blogging in 1997. How can you pioneer something or be one of the first if you were not interested in yet for at least 3 YEARS that other people used to actually pioneer blogging and blog?
• Podcasting: I along with other users have shown you that he did make podcasting, or make anything that was needed to do it.

You can say I vandalized the article ,but even after I and other people have told you that these things are not true you merely change the wording a little bit. Bill Clinton can define he word is ,but the definition is still the same! Quit trying to associate him with things he likes.--(Nirelan shout)

Your contention that he did not invent blogging, create RSS from whole cloth, etc, is noted, but that DOES NOT mean that what he did do is not relevant. --Random832(tc) 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC) PS I changed the wording to the more neutral "an early blog" instead of "one of the first" - I would consider ANY blog whose existence antedates (even if by less than a year) the coinage of the term "weblog" to qualify as an "early" one, do you have any objection to this classification? (16:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I made the article focus on what he did by talking about his company and BloggerCon. However now that even you admit he didn't create blogging or RSS you still want to include those things. --(Nirelan/shout)

The article doesn't SAY he created blogging, or that he created RSS. That he didn't create blogging is not a reason to omit all mention of blogging from the article, and frankly I'm baffled by your contention that it is. --Random832(tc) 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "that DOES NOT mean that what he did do is not relevant" and I agree. RSS, blogging and podcasting are not what he did. Starting a company and BloggerCon is what he did.--(Nirelan/shout)

I meant what he did do in regard to (for example) RSS is relevant. He didn't make the first version, but he made several subsequent versions with substantial modifications. I don't understand your claim that it's not worthy of mention at all just because he built on the work of others rather than creating it 100% from scratch. --Random832(tc) 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he was the person that made decisions about RSS or something it would be relavent, but RSS is a standard. No one person makes a decision. Associating him with RSS is like associating Windows with one of the hundreds or thousands of people that have worked on it.--(Nirelan/shout)

Adding to the article, removing stuff from the article

Despite the complaints of Nirelan and the repeated vandalism of this article he used to get attention to those complaints, this article errs more on the side of omitting relevant information than on the side of giving Dave Winer too much credit for technologies in which he played a major role.

For example, BloggerCon 1 and 2 get summed up in a sentence. And the main BloggerCon article isn't much more informative either about these events or Dave Winer's role in them. When the Register runs a huge flame-war against BloggerCon [14] and [15], they have no doubt that BloggerCon = Dave Winer. But when Wikipedia gives credit, it's to "Dave Winer and friends."

For another example, Dave's evangelism of OPML has inspired a lot of new stuff including most recently Placeblogger.com. I hesitate to add this stuff because I'm no expert and it'd be good if some expert who isn't a friend of Dave would do it. But if nobody will do that stuff maybe I will.

Random832 has done yeoman work trying to meet the complaints of NIrelan, but I think in two instances too much stuff was taken out. First, Dave's sale of Weblogs.com belongs in this article. Second, I don't think it's appropriate to pull so much information about RadioUserland out of this article. Surely the Bill Gates article includes substantial detail about Microsoft under his leadership? betsythedevine 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Gates article is twice as long, too, and he's been at Microsoft for thirty years. I actually think that the sections (along with links to main articles) are fine, but there should be an additional section (of comparable length) on living videotext --Random832(tc) 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Check

IMHO- this is probably one of the most troubled articles about a person I've seen. The relentless vandalism and arguments are inexplicable. There are often dozens of edits daily. I think Nirelan should no longer edit this article has that user seems to be one of the major problems. So many claims that user has made without referencing anything. Clearly a personal problem from him. David Winer is a hugely influential and polarizing person, his article should be NPOV and well written, we owe to ourselves and readers to do a much better job at keeping personal feelings out of this article and sticking to published, referenced information. The fact that Someone actually considered this for an AfD is insane. I've added this to my own watch list and I'll definitely try to keep a close eye on its improvement.Testerer 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to Improve things

As agreed upon before, this article is a mess. I've tried to subdivided and insert refs wherever possible. I think it might need a full edit but we'll try and avoid that for now. In the future- PLEASE DO NOT ERASE or REMOVE information unless you have good reason to do so and can prove your point in it's removal. The discussion page should be used regarding all major edits and if we work together and be fair, this article should be well written and complete in a matter of days.Testerer 19:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tester tell me what I have not proven.

• RSS was created by Ramanathan V. Guha

Which RSS? RSS .91, RSS .92, RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0? You really believe that the guy who created Rich Site Summary for netscape gets all the credit for continued improvements and in fact major upgrades to the protocol? To say RSS is lazy, there are many versions of RSS, some Winer and Guha co-authored, others were sole authored by David Winer.Testerer 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blogging: It is clearly known that he didn't invent blogging, yet you still want to tie him to it by using words like pioneered or was one of the first to blog. The blog wiki clearly begins the history section in 1994 while this article says Dave started blogging in 1997. How can you pioneer something or be one of the first if you were not interested in yet for at least 3 YEARS that other people used to actually pioneer blogging and blog?

I don't think any one person invented blogging, but that should not get in the way of fairly describing the obviously important role that Dave Winer has played in the history and evolution of blogging. To use the word "pioneer" does not mean he invented it. Frankly he should get a short mention on his roll in blogging and everything thing else should go into the history of blogging article. FWIW- Adam Curry, Leo Laporte, Dave Winer, Dawn and Drew and many others were early pioneers in podcasting. Pioneer does not = sole creator and inventor. Testerer 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Podcasting: I along with other users have shown you that he did not make podcasting, or make anything that was needed to do it. Kevin Marks created podcasting at BloggerCon.

http://epeus.blogspot.com/2005/12/of-bloggercon-and-podcasting.html This is perhaps the most insane link I've ever seen. You say that 1 guy created podcasting at a convention started by Winer and others from Harvard, and to prove this, you link to that guys blog where he says he created it? Insane. I can't claim to have landed on the moon when my only proof is my own blog post about how I once landed on the moon.Testerer 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to blogs to prove your point is not up to the standard of wikipedia. This information is not correct. More importantly, recent edits that say Winer was invited by microsoft to help develop XML-RPC could not be further from reality. There is a known and much talked about rift regarding this very subject. Kevin marks did not invent podcasting at BloggerCon. You can't link to his blog where he claims such a thing and call it proof. Not only is it absurd it is not definitive. This is a case where stubbornness and vandalism have ruined an article. Also, PLEASE sign your edits. 4 of thesse "~" please. Testerer 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "RSS was created by Ramanathan V. Guha" No-one's saying it wasn't. But Winer's LATER contributions to the format, despite not being the actual original creation of RSS are still significant in their own right. --Random832(tc) 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Blogging - the words "one of the first" were removed, stop bringing that up. The article currently (before you vandalized the lead para to remove even that) makes the much more neutral claim that Scripting News was an early blog. --Random832(tc) 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Podcasting - Why is it that being the first making a RSS server that lets you upload mp3 files and use the enclosure tag is not "inventing podcasting", but making a tool to automatically download such files to itunes is "inventing podcasting"? --Random832(tc) 20:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I am considering whether or not to file an RfC against Nirelan regarding this article. Anyone else have any thoughts? --Random832(tc) 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File it man, he's ruining this article. I've already reported him to an admin I know.Testerer 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring Error

This article gives no credit to David Winer for his important roles in pioneering podcasting. It is a glaring omission as are the details of his work with OPML, and details about the importance of BloggerCon. This article has been hijacked by people who wish to rewrite history. The only mentions of podcasting are his own podcast and a few external links. From the actual Podcast article in Wikipedia.

"The concept of podcasting was suggested as early as 2000 and its technical components were available by 2001, then implemented in the program Radio Userland[1]. In 2003 regular podcasts started showing up on well-known Web sites and software support spread."

And I think we can all agree that Dave founded Radio Userland right? So why does he not get credit in this article? Why has vandalism been stopped in the podcast article but not in this article?

Again from the "History of Podcasting" article:

• October 2000 - The concept of using enclosures in RSS Feeds was proposed in a draft by Tristan Louis^[2], and implemented in somewhat different form by Dave Winer, a software developer and an author of the RSS format. Winer had discussed the concept, also in October 2000, with Adam Curry^[3], a user of his software, and had received other customer requests for audioblogging features. Winer included the new functionality in RSS 0.92^[4], by defining a new element^[5] called "enclosure"^[6], which would simply pass the address of a media file to the RSS aggregator.

• January 11, 2001 - Winer demonstrated the RSS enclosure feature by enclosing a Grateful Dead song in his Scripting News weblog.^[7].

Well sourced, NPOV content that clearly defines the origin of podcasting while fairly giving all parties credit. Why is that so hard in this article?Testerer 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information has now been ported into this article for clarity and fairness. It is entirely sourced and has stood the test of time being the starting point of the history time line in the history of podcasting article. It will continue to be included in this article until it is proven to be incorrect, which would change the history article drastically. It does not give unfair credit to Winer but does fairly, and accurately describe history. Kevin Marks did not invent podcasting in 2003. This goes back to October 2000.Testerer 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSS 2.0

From the undisputed actual article on RSS in wikipedia

"In September 2002, Winer released a final successor to RSS 0.92, known as RSS 2.0 and emphasizing "Really Simple Syndication" as the meaning of the three-letter abbreviation. The RSS 2.0 spec removed the type attribute added in RSS 0.94 and allowed people to add extension elements using XML namespaces. Several versions of RSS 2.0 were released, but the version number of the document model was not changed."

RSS 2.0 is what podcasters and subscribers use today, this is why Winer is given what credit he is given.Testerer 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suprise! More Vandalism!

Why would anyone put this in the main article?

Please prove that he made something important to podcasting. You can't say he created the enclosure becuase that is already available in Atom and URIs. I fully admit he used it but he did not create it. Danja has already proved that.

• "I didn't remove the line, but it is inaccurate and misleading and should be removed, or at least substantially modified. The RSS 2.0 enclosure element is neither necessary or sufficient for podcasting (the same role is covered in Atom and for that matter RSS 1.0). Winer did add this element to RSS 2.0, but the facility it provides was already available in web standards (any URI/link can potentially have a media object representation, and hence act as an enclosure, this can be determined using HTTP content negotiation). The promotion of the podcasting mode of media delivery (in which Winer played a major role) was considerably more significant than any implementation detail. Danja 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"

Seriously?

RSS 2.0 with enclosures is what the vast majority of people use to syndicate their podcasts. Someone please, please, please put a leash on this puppy.Testerer 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 References in the Winer and Podasting subsection

10 refs are now in the Winer and Podcasting subsection, since this is turned into a shouting match, I thought I'd point that out. 10 refs working to substantiate a mere 3 paragraphs. Good work!Testerer 20:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tester please prove to me that URIs and Atom can not link to media. If at the very least those two standards can do it then Dave did not invent the enclosure. Nirelan

He helped create enclosures in RSS 2.0, which is what this discussion should be about.Testerer 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"URIs" is meaningless - that's like saying that <object> and <embed> have absolutely no advantage over <a> in HTML. RSS antedates Atom. And it doesn't say "invented", it says "first to implement". there is a difference. --Random832(tc) 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URIs having that capeability is not meaningless because RSS uses them. If Atom did it first he obviously wasnt the first to implement it. Nirelan

The question is, was he one of the firsts to implement them into RSS, again, Atom has nothing to do with it. Very few people use Atom for podcast syndication.Testerer 06:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the word "antedate" please - I've changed my above comment to include a wiktionary link for your convenience - Atom came after RSS. --Random832(tc) 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC) and my point was, "can link to media" is NOT the sum total of what enclosure does.[reply]

Just a little non-encyclopedic context for Atom. Atom was at most a project (called Echo IIRC), not a product, at the time of Bloggercon 1 (October 2003), when Adam Curry plus Dave Winer plus audiobloggers Chris Lydon and Harold Gilchrist plus tech geniuses like Kevin Marks all got into the same rooms and had conversations that led to "podcasting" becoming popular. The audiobloggers in the room were already using the enclosure feature of RSS 2.0 at that time. After that event, I started working for Feedster, one of the early blog-search engines--it worked by polling the Weblogs.com ping-server (maybe others too, this wasn't my end of the company) to see which blogs had updated and then polling the RSS feeds of those blogs for new content. I can well remember our dismay when the Atom fork showed up first in Mark Pilgrim's blog, later in Blogger and MovableType--meaning that Feedster's search engines and our aggregator (and everybody else's aggregators) had to be able to parse (n + 1) different kinds of feeds whereas before we had gotten by parsing just RSS 1.0 and 2.0 and .91 and .92 and ...maybe I'm forgetting somebody? Anyway, to claim that Atom had enclosures before RSS 2.0 is simply absurd. If fellow-Wikipedians want to keep arguing with Nirelan on this talk page, I salute your tolerance and energy. But will somebody please block him from repeatedly vandalizing the article? betsythedevine 21:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you now acknowledge that Dave only did it after someone else so I am happy. Nirelan

The (well-documented) claim generally made for Dave is that he created (in 2000) the enclosure element for RSS, which the first audioblogs and later the first "podcasts" relied on. betsythedevine 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly did not make enclousures! Tristan Louis did!

Tristan Louis _invented_ them, Dave Winer _built_ them. Why do you think that does not deserve mention? Your position seems to be that everyone but Dave Winer deserves credit for what they did but he doesn't deserve credit for anything he contributed to if anyone else was also involved in any way, and that seems inconsistent. --Random832(tc) 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect to Tristan Louis, here is the full text of what he did that gets cited as the "invention" of enclosures: [16]. Yes, using a special tag to link to a sound file was one two-line suggestion that Louis included iamong many others. But the word "enclosure" never appears. It was Dave's decision, not Tristan's, to generalize the concept of linking to any media file from RSS. If we were using what Tristan Louis invented, then you'd need to invent a new RSS tag any time you planned to link to a different media type--Tristan proposed separate tags for "sound" and "video." betsythedevine 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The diff

Well - here's the results of today's "storm" - [diff] - I like to think that at least something net positive came out of this - the article is better than it was before. --Random832(tc) 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at this diff, be aware that some of the info was split out into the linked "Main article"s for the subsections. I don't know how much should be here and how much there, but just be aware if restoring content that it may not have been actually deleted, just moved. 63.107.91.99 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! The article has been greatly improved by the addition of so many references, although I still think a few parts that were deleted should be restored--see below. betsythedevine 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]