Talk:Hello Internet

Freebooting

The article currently says: "The word 'Freebooting' was originally created by Brady on the podcast, and refers to websites taking videos and re-uploading them to their own website." Freebooting is an old term, derived from 16th century freebooter (pirate), and has been used for pirating generally; perhaps the author meant Haran created a new meaning/definition for the term? If so, a reliable source should be cited. Here's an 1828 dictionary definition of freebooting. Agyle (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agyle,

I made an edit to reflect that fact. You are correct, and even Brady Haran acknowledged that the word 'freebooting' had a prior meaning.

CSBurksesq (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

CSBurksesq, thanks for adding the reference to http://www.hellointernet.fm/podcast/5, but when citing audio or video content, it should also include a time for the reference. It's analogous to a page reference in a book, I don't want to read 300 pages or listen to an hour-long podcast to check if a claim is true. :-) If you just put in something like "12:34" after the URL, someone else can dress the reference up with nicer formatting. Agyle (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

A few refs for those interested

Since I guess this is going to get AFDd again, I'm going to dump some links here of most of the third party coverage I could find: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. I haven't curated these links for quality, but all of them mention the podcast. Finally, there is the fact that it was briefly number 1 on iTunes. I can't really objectively judge the podcast for notability: I think it is notable, but not by Wikipedia's definition (possibly due to inherent biases in the ways modern journalism works, possibly just because Wikipedia's standards are different to mine). —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 15:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Also on Intention Deficit, Mental Floss, and Portland Flag Association. For the #1 on Itunes we have Itunes Charts. That's all I could find. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I think the charting is the most compelling evidence of notability: The closest specific notability guideline is possibly WP:NALBUM, and one of the criteria there is The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart. Of course, those criteria are not relevant to podcasts, but if there were specific criteria for podcasts I'd imagine they'd include a similar criterion. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Referencing tags

@Chris troutman: I saw you tagged this article with multiple tags. I agree with the use of {{notability}}, but I am not sure why you used {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}} or {{primary sources}}. The article is currently quite heavily (perhaps over-) referenced, especially for a stub, and any reference to a primary source is currently backed up by a secondary source. Could you clarify as to why you added those tags? Thanks —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 08:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Keeping it tight

We need to make sure this article doesn't get too bloated: there is a risk that something like this will get full of fancruft. Really, content should only be included if it can be verified with an independent reliable source: the article shouldn't contain original research. To confirm: a topic generally shouldn't be included if either the podcast itself or Grey or Brady are the only sources for it. Thanks for contributing! —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I 100% agree with that. I understand the enthusiasm here but if the article fills up with fancruft then it will look more like a deletion candidate to a casual reviewer. I know some people may be tempted to feel that special rules apply here because this is clever people talking about interesting stuff but they really don't. This article needs to prove its notability just as much as it would do if it was about, say, a videogaming podcast and, as with any article, trivia and cruft only distract from that. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the drivel about the "flag referendum" needs to be cut down to one or two sentences even if there are RS sources for it. If there are no good sources then it has to go completely. The penguin is the same. With RS sources it gets a passing mention, without RS sources, it goes. I am not ripping anything out for now but I have tagged for excessive use of primary sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think this revision was the last time that most of the article was backed up with independent sources. I'd love the other editors (Devodevo2002, Mr. Granger, TheNicolaScheme, and Chickentheswap, for example) to come here to give their opinion on how we can keep this article compliant with content policy, especially verifiability and no original research. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 19:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with what has been said so far—the penguin, the flag, and the like should only be mentioned if they are discussed by independent sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree but i have to say that i think the Nail and Gear can be discussed without secondary sources if there aren't any very good ones. Devodevo2002 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I once started a draft within my own sandbox [12] for these exact reasons. The show has had some impact on the external world, which might or might not have been referenced somewhere. In this list I do include the following topics : 'Freebooting' (discussed over the internet, eventually by a reliable source), 'hotstoppers' (which had a fund-raiser campaign organised and could have been mentioned in some news somewhere), 'C.G.P. Grey the Penguin' (which I was hoping to find some press release from the zoo eventually, and also had a sort of fund-raiser associated to it), and the whole 'Vexilollogy' topics (which seems to have some hold in the field). I do think the page has been resuscitated to quickly and it should have undergo a proper review first. That being said, there are a number of other topics from the show that definitely goes under the 'fancruft' category (basically what was in the HI Culture section in that revision [13]). To address Devodevo2002 topic, the flag can probably get a mention without any other source, but just the same extend as the podcast logo does. M'vy (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Freebooting will clearly make the cut: there are multiple reliable sources mentioning the podcast's involvement with that. Hotstoppers and the penguin I'm not so sure. Hotstoppers could theoretically eventually make a splash (hehe), but I can't find any coverage linking them with the podcast at the current time. Wrt the penguin, I can't find any independent sources talking about it (nothing published by Bristol zoo for example), so I don't think it can be included for now. [14] could probably be counted as an independent source for the flag referendum, so that can stay in. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Do and count as reliable sources to you? —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

References

In fact, I think that the flag referendum can even be cited to the HI website itself, per WP:ABOUTSELF. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 18:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the HI website is a reliable source for information about the flag referendum. The only question is whether or not the information is significant enough to merit inclusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that it passes all three core content policies, and is probably the most notable event of the podcast's history (considering it did get some coverage in two independent sources). I think that as long as coverage is kept brief and tone is kept suitable, it would be an acceptable inclusion. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not against it getting a sentence or two but nothing more. The results table was definitely overkill. The problem is that I'm not sure this is possible due to the level of idiotic editing this article receives. It is sad that an intelligent podcast seems to have attracted a few real idiots for fans and that this is both making it harder for Wikipedia to cover it properly and giving a poor impression of the fans as a whole. My advice to the fans is to start a fan wiki and fill it up with all the stuff that we can't have here. The internet is a large place. The fans would be much happier building their own place under their own rules. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pity if we had to request page protection. I see that an IP has just filled in the rest of the episode list. That is the sort of edit that would be prevented by semi-protection and I'd hate for legitimate edits to be prevented because a few people can't stop squabbling over flags.

--DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I had already requested semi protection which only had lasted from May 25-28. I think someone should request for semi protection but I've been busy IRL recently so I can't do it. 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrWooHoo (talk • contribs)

I agree, some semi-protection would be nice to avoid the regular pranker edits. Crh23, I saw you removed the Episode list for lack of added value and too many external links. Someone added it back with the show notes, so I will reformat it with the EpisodeList template (actually I do have a XSL stylesheet to convert from the RSS feed) keeping the summary of the show notes. Do you think this justifies the list inclusion on the page? M'vy (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)