Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Our Wikipedia Entry Is In Danger!

Apparently, we are up for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy: Check it.

I would love to chime in to keep it, obviously. But I don't think that's right. If it deserves to be there, then I think fans of the show should say why. If we were to say anything about the show, I would say that we are one of the first podcasters in Cleveland, OH (not that that's a huge deal), we came on board at a very precise time in podcasting history: February 2005, when a lot of other popular shows came about. We just recorded our 141st show tonight (it will be posted next week) and we're not close to podfading. I feel that we have been sort of influential in the podosphere. Now, we're not as influential as a Dawn and Drew, a Bitterest Pill or a Coverville, but I feel we have carved out a sizeable niche in family-friendly podcast and I would have to say that we have infulenced the Couplecast podcasting genre. Nora is definitely a unique voice in the world of female podcasters. At the very least, Nora should be recognized for that fact alone. I mean, come on...we're mentioned by Mur Lafferty and Rob Walch fromPodcast 411 in his book Tricks of the Podcasting Masters, for cripes sake!

Sigh...I really hate to toot our own horn, but if we deserve to be on Wikipedia, then please let the powers that be know how you feel.

Thank you for your time.

ON EDIT: Mr X from Podcast Galaxy reminded me of my contributions to the podcasting world with my artwork from Summer 2005. I had forgotten how that helped put us on the map, so to speak. Not to mention that dozens of other popular podcasts are using artwork from Jawbone Radio. At the very least, Jawbone should be rememberd for that. And the Bill Watterson mom interview...

ON EDIT PART 2: Ok, apparently the Wiki people feel that I have stoked the fire and tried to get people to "vote" on our entry by telling our readers and listerners "let the powers that be know how you feel". I understand that the wiki discussion forum is not a ballot. But how else are people going to put forth good reasons to keep an article without asking someone to participate? Hence, discussion. My opinion, if you feel strongly enough about this show to go and state your case, then fine. Hey, it beats me signing on with hundreds of fake accounts to tell them to keep it, right? And if you do decide to state your case, be friendly. An angry Jawbone fan does no one any good.

Let me state for the record that this show has had much more longevity than other similar shows that started around the same time. And my art, while not a direct contribution to podcasting as a whole, has had an influence in the podcasting community nonetheless. Perhaps that doesn't make the cut on wikipedia with their WP:WEB guidelines. If it doesn't, fine. I'll let the wiki gods do what they will.

Anyway, I'm not pushing people to vote for this.I'm not out to bully the wiki. But I am encouraging people to state valid reasons to keep the article, for the very least, to remember my artwork and show as a footnote in this podcasting movement.

ON EDIT PART 3: Wiki Editor AlphaChimp has decided to remove this podcasts reference in the Calvin and Hobbes article on Wikipedia. Can anyone say vindictive?

UPDATE: Our friend, Alphachimp has backpedaled from his original threat to excise us from the Calvin and Hobbes entry. This was his orignal statement:
"Thanks for suggesting the Watterson article, however. I'll be removing the non-notable podcast reference."
He has since said this:
"For what it's worth, maybe you should actually check the history before making personal attacks against me on your blog. I could not find and therefore did not remove the reference. "
I guess he would also have to remove us from the Bill Watterson article, and deny the talk I gave on the podcast in the spring to Lakeland Community College. The talk that Watterson's former editor and Executive VP and Editor for Universal Press Syndicate, Lee Salem stayed to hear. It's one thing to get deleted for not meeting guidelines. It's quite another to decide that any reference to a deletion is therefore bad and not relevant simply because an original article doesn't meet criteria. Revisionism, anyone?

Oh, and as far as the personal attacks on this blog. I cannot, nor do I wish to control what our blog readers say. And anyway, this blog follows its own set of guidelines.

UPDATE: Oh well. We got deleted. Thanks to everyone who tried to help and make a valid case to keep us. Apparently we didn't counterargue well enough, although I think that Rob and Mur did a good job of stating their case. Like I said, what the Chimp wants, the Chimp gets.