GWC Wikipedia Entry

[Solai]

As we approach the third anniversary of Galactic Watercooler a notable gap has come to our attention:

We have no Wikipedia entry.

Thinking, "Oh, this will be easy" I dutifully created a new Wiki account, wrote up an entry and proudly submitted it. Within 20 seconds however the page was promptly removed.

This is a request for GWCers with Wiki experience to help us get a foothold on Wikipedia. Once we have a stable entry we can all amend and enhance.

If you have experience in this please share that you are working on an entry here and report back once it has been submitted and doesn't get removed.

Thank you!

[Pike]

Not going to happen any time soon. They frown on such pages until you can prove 'notability,' and the standard there is pretty hard. Essentially, you've got to have links from all over the web.

[CylonMATRIX]

I 2nd that! I setup my own entry in wiki, Papia kristang, about my own mother tongue back in 2002-2003. It's my own baby which I started out as a stub.

I've since been blacklisted as an "internet vandal" of some sort and banned from further editing something that I created. Beat that!

[Pike]

I 2nd that! I setup my own entry in wiki, Papia kristang, about my own mother tongue back in 2002-2003. It's my own baby which I started out as a stub.

I've since been blacklisted as an "internet vandal" of some sort and banned from further editing something that I created. Beat that!

Odd, it's there now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papia_Kristang). You might have run afoul of some other guidelines. They got loads.

[The3]

Okay, I've been doing some research on WikiProject Podcasting, trying to wrap my head around the project's policies, criteria etc.

Currently, podcasts (both audio and video) are subject to the criteria set forth in the WP:WEB notability guidelines, which covers all manner of online media and content. In order to put the entry up and make it stick, we have to prove that GWC...

1. "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" be they magazines, books, documentaries, websites etc.
or
2. "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
or
3. "is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators."

Door number three is out, so that leaves two criteria for us to concentrate on. Door number two is, dare I say, highly likely at some point in the future. We're big enough that we should be able to win SOMETHING if the community keeps their eyes peeled for nomination opportunities. But door number one? Ah, friends...therein lies our prime opportunity.

Here's what was going to need:

The issue and page number of GWC's mention in Rolling Stone, ideally with a scan
Some verifiable record of Howard Stern's mention of the 'cast, preferably in the form of an actual soundbite
ANY other online mention of us beyond a simple courtesy link. Give us everything you can find, and we can worry about sorting out the "reputable" ones down the road


The more attention to the 'cast gets, the better. Has anyone ever thought about tipping off a newspaper in the crüe's area that one of the most popular and successful genre podcasts is produced right under their noses? Who knows? They might be interested, and it might just be the article of evidence that seals the notability claim.

[Pike]

The best course is to beef up the blog, and get attention that way. Once there's a bunch of cites, it'll be easier to make the case for a WikiP page.

[The3]

That's definitely moving in the right direction, but we should already have enough attention to at least start arguing our case.

[Pike]

That's definitely moving in the right direction, but we should already have enough attention to at least start arguing our case.

No. Not by a long shot. Don't endanger your editing status.

[CylonMATRIX]

We should just quote the sheer mass of famous people the GWC crew managed to call in for interviews for the 'casts :cool:

People like :


Colin Ferguson
Michael Hogan
Kate Vernon
etc

[Solai]

From what I understand it isn't the content that is important, but the ability to cite outside references. The Rolling Stone article is no longer up online. I wonder if anyone has a physical copy of it we could scan and post.

[Audra]

I'm pretty sure Chuck or Sean has the sound clip of Stern talking about GWC, and I know we've got the Rolling Stone issue (although the nearest one is framed; I'll have to check to see if we have an unframed paper version).

[CylonMATRIX]

hey, howzabout getting ol' Howie to call in for an interview on the podcast? :D

[Thunderscreech]

Is this thread still about Wikipedia?

[SeelixSeesAll]

Is this thread still about Wikipedia?

Yes, it surely is. The Podcast Award will address requirement #2 in the aforementioned requirements for a wikipedia page. I've quoted it in part for your convience.



Okay, I've been doing some research on WikiProject Podcasting, trying to wrap my head around the project's policies, criteria etc.

Currently, podcasts (both audio and video) are subject to the criteria set forth in the WP:WEB notability guidelines, which covers all manner of online media and content. In order to put the entry up and make it stick, we have to prove that GWC...

1. "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" be they magazines, books, documentaries, websites etc.
or
2. "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
or
3. "is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators."

Door number three is out, so that leaves two criteria for us to concentrate on. Door number two is, dare I say, highly likely at some point in the future. We're big enough that we should be able to win SOMETHING if the community keeps their eyes peeled for nomination opportunities.

[Thunderscreech]

Ah! Excellent, fingers crossed!

I've prosecuted quite a few WP:WEB and WP:NOTABLE cases and deleted a bunch that failed to make the cut, I'd like to help make sure this article meets the requirements from the beginning. I suggest creating it in userspace first so we can craft it to standards before posting it, otherwise it'll get zapped by the NP patrol.

Once it's done and has an explicit assertion of notability that'll pass, move it from userspace into articlespace.

One of the most common mistakes people make is saving a new article before it's strong enough to stand on it's own, there are NP Patrollers who will implode it on sight. Pro-tip: Avoid drama by fine crafting it first!

[Darth_Revan_Rules]

if all else fails I'm willing to lead a team of commandos into the Wikipedia HQ and hold up in their server room until they give into our demands

[Cami's mom]

The3 said
...
The more attention to the 'cast gets, the better. Has anyone ever thought about tipping off a newspaper in the crüe's area that one of the most popular and successful genre podcasts is produced right under their noses? Who knows? They might be interested, and it might just be the article of evidence that seals the notability claim.

I don't know any local newspapers but I was thinking about tipping the local PBS music show off to Wizard Wrock and pointing them here...

Then I started thinking that Audra and those other guys :D should get some love for their GWCwrock 'cause their stuff is awesome. I only have the Geordi and Ripley songs. Which I would gladly have paid .99 or 1.29 for. GWC should publish music to iTunes and raise some cash that way. I'd love to get the "Here in CIC" song.

Does that sound official enough to further GWCs Wikipedia article claim?

Though, even if it's not I'm going to suggest them as a worthy local music talent. It's too good a chance to pass up on.

[Cami's mom]

How would I find the demographics and podcast subscription numbers? There a couple of media and pop-culture writers at the local rag I'd be glad to cold call.

[Thunderscreech]

I don't know any local newspapers but I was thinking about tipping the local PBS music show off to Wizard Wrock and pointing them here...
<snip>
Does that sound official enough to further GWCs Wikipedia article claim?

With Wikipedia, the WP:MUSIC guideline for notability offers the best feedback on this. Short answer: No.

Less short answer is: Super no way.

Useful answer: The notability guidelines for music is designed to keep Wikipedia from becoming a MySpace of sorts for garage bands. There are some wicked great garage bands out there, but they don't all meet the description of being notable unless they've got a significant footprint. Here's the meat:

It's got to have gotten real notable coverage (like Rolling Stone)
OR
It needs to have done a big deal tour (U2/Rolling Stones style)
OR
It needs to have sold a metric pantston of records/tracks
etc.

So, nyet gospodin, using the wicked Wizard Wrock to assert notability actually ties your hands and makes the task more difficult because you're basically using a pivot table to suddenly add a whole new layer of barriers instead of it being added inertia that knocks down a wall.

прости меня!

My suggestion is to focus on news coverage and make the assertion of notability explicit so it doesn't get hit by WP:CSD A7, the most commonly used arrow in the quiver.

[Cami's mom]

Hi all,

Is there a media kit for GWC blog and/or forum? I can't find one. It looks to me like the FAQ (crue bios, podcast stats, etc.) would be a start with an added contact email (media-inquires@galacticwatercooler.com or something would work.)

If there isn't one I'd be glad to help put one together. It's not my specialty but I dabble.

Thanks,
Cami's mom

[fastcart]

Wrt wikipedia, I suggest waiting. The Eve community tried getting Clear Skies added, but we were shot down. And, one of the people who used his veto powers against us was the creator of Red vs. Blue. ): So, imagine what happens if there's conflict of interest from other podcasters against GWC.

Even after all the notability and awards Clear Skies has won, there's still no stub. Sucks, but that's how it is.

[THX1966]

I still think we should go after the award. Simply because the Crue deserve the recognition.

I was thinking. another podcast that I used to listen to Binary Revolution never got a Wikipedia entry but the host did..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stankdawg

Perhaps we are attempting to get the wrong thing listed first. Maybe the first thing to do is get the Crue entered into wikipedia as a first step toward recognition of the 'cast and community. Read Stankdawgs entry, I think we could make it happen from that direction.

what do you think?

[The3]

I still think we're better off trying to get the entire 'cast an entry first. Just as there are strict notability requirements for online media, there are strict requirements for people. Looking at the entry you linked to, that person had notability far beyond just the podcast you listened to. He was part of other media projects, wrote quite a bit for a notable periodical, was a major member of a notorious hacking group, and has presented at DEF CON.

As awesome as they are, the cruë's fame stems pretty much exclusively from GWC. While you're welcome to try to get some pages written on them, you'd have a heck of a time trying to gather enough sources to satisfy the requirements and not have them promptly deleted.

Also, I think we're definitely still going for the award. I don't think anyone was arguing a counterpoint on that one.

[THX1966]

I still think we're better off trying to get the entire 'cast an entry first. Just as there are strict notability requirements for online media, there are strict requirements for people. Looking at the entry you linked to, that person had notability far beyond just the podcast you listened to. He was part of other media projects, wrote quite a bit for a notable periodical, was a major member of a notorious hacking group, and has presented at DEF CON.

As awesome as they are, the cruë's fame stems pretty much exclusively from GWC. While you're welcome to try to get some pages written on them, you'd have a heck of a time trying to gather enough sources to satisfy the requirements and not have them promptly deleted.

Also, I think we're definitely still going for the award. I don't think anyone was arguing a counterpoint on that one.

I have not been able to go back and check, but I believe both Chuck and Audra are published writers. I am pretty sure Chuck did some writing for Pop/Sci. as well as Wired and consumer research.

And please don't get me wrong, Most times I post an idea to spark a conversation from which the actual right answer may be revealed.

I am also not trying to split our focus. I think we need to focus on the podcast awards and see that through to a successful conclusion.

[dxf]

...we can rough-draft the material on fan sites, inching closer all the while!

[Xero1 The Board Lurker]

Okay, I've been doing some research on WikiProject Podcasting, trying to wrap my head around the project's policies, criteria etc.

3. "is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators."

Door number three is out, so that leaves two criteria for us to concentrate on.

Pardon my ignorance, but podcasting seems respected (millions of people listen) and independent of its creators (I know many of us download via iTunes, which unless i have been greatly misinformed is quite independent of GWC)

Where am i off?

[fastcart]

Pardon my ignorance, but podcasting seems respected (millions of people listen) and independent of its creators (I know many of us download via iTunes, which unless i have been greatly misinformed is quite independent of GWC)

Where am i off?

Times has changed since the 15 months of this thread's last post maybe?

[Pike]

Times has changed since the 15 months of this thread's last post maybe?

Hrm. Slice of SiFi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slice_of_SciFi) got a mention.