Forum:Wiki podcast

This idea was thrown around a few times. Basically, have a monthly, 30-minute or less audio program produced by local wikians about Call of Duty-related things. It could be fun, and would engage the community more. It would also add another medium for opinion and discussion, other than blogs and the oft-forgotten Watercooler. 17:56, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
yes. 18:18, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

All my yes. This would be great fun to do - however, how would we choose who gets to appear in the podcast? 18:49, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Me and Kat used to throw this idea around with each other. We were gonna suggest doing it, the only major roadblock we hit was figuring out how to record ourselves having a natural conversation. But with Skype now an option, whoever does this could just record the Skype conversation. 19:27, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Some segments could be prerecorded. In theory, it could begin à la NPR or BBC news with a brief rundown of major stories, which can make part of the podcast be journalistic. 22:29, November 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * What you could do is load up a Skype conversation AND Audacity, that way both parties would have a recording of what they were saying, all that needs to be done then is have the files merged and it'll be completely natural. There may also be downloads specifically for recording Skype calls. 07:14, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * With a quick google search I found this. It could likely work if people want to give it a test run. 07:16, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

^fuq ya -- 20:19, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, sounds really fun. 19:32, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

All my yes 19:35, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per all, great idea. Now all we need is a news room with N7 as the anchorman. -- 20:46, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Per all. 22:31, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. As long as everybody who wants to participate can, I think it would be an excellent addition. The Antibrony (talk) 22:36, November 21, 2012 (UTC)The Antibrony


 * ...no?


 * It's meant to be fun; worry not. Although we are the Call of Duty Wiki, so we should at least try to keep some parts of it relevant. 01:47, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just had to ask, given we get the odd user complaining whenever we do anything not CoD related. As long it's fun over pure Call of Duty natter I'm all for it. 02:34, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. 23:50, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fun. I say yes. --Novafan365, master of scrap (talk) 00:18, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

me gusta. 01:50, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree on the grounds that we set up an effective method for recording. I find Skype highly unreliable when it comes to any conversation whatsoever, especially when you have more than, like, 3 people in a group. Doing pre-recorded things beforehand would yeild better results. Joe Copp 01:51, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

It does sound fun. 03:33, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

I kinda wanna hammer out some details, so who would be in the podcast (admins, trusted users, etc.) how many people would there be, and like Joe stated what would be our method of recording effectively? 01:58, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Skype is perfect. --KλT 10:43, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I could also set up a Teamspeak server or something similar which we could use. 15:54, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Mumble would be easier (and we love open-source things, don't we?). 16:45, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

} - Would this be weekly or monthly? How many people would be in the podcast? I haz questions to ask later :) 08:04, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Weekly may be too ambitious. Monthly is easier to organize date(s) for recording. 15:43, November 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it could depend how we separate everyone up, it could be possible to do weekly if it's a different group every week. 07:51, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Every other week could work, gives us a little breathing room to plan. 22:33, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Red. Having it every other week could make the podcast more current, as in talking about a forum topic as it is going on rather than talking about it when it is finished. 23:21, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Support C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER on not using Support - I like. --MLGisNot4Me talk 10:34, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support; Sounds good to me. 03:52, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose on two grounds, although these are more concerns than anything. First, I'm concerned the podcasts will quickly be abandoned by those who are charged with working on it, seeing how far our YouTube and Social Network programs have gone. Secondly, if this is a strictly Call of Duty Podcast, we'll run out of any meaningful topics in a relatively short amount of time, and the podcast will be abandoned once again. 08:05, November 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * "seeing how far our Social Network programs have gone." - Well um since me and Damac have been running our Twitter we've gone from 400 followers to 4,400 so to be honest I don't really know what you are talking about. 10:13, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously have never heard me, damac, sactage, cod4, bovell, and madness ramble on for hours on end metl. we never run out of material yo. 10:16, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're strictly talking about Call of Duty related material, and these are 30 minute podcasts, any topics on Call of Duty will be gone in several episodes. What would be the biggest priority topics of the show? 20:18, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * For one thing, we wouldn't strictly talk about Call of Duty, as has been mentioned several times in this forum. For another, News about Call of Duty comes out almost every day. If this was a monthly, hell even weekly thing, we would have a ton of news to discuss from the past week. 20:30, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * YouTube is for videos. Video editing requires talent which is not something every user has, so of course we haven't used the YouTube channel much. In fact we've only had a very small amount of videos made for the Wiki. Also adding on to the "needs talent", a video couldn't be uploaded every week or so, a podcast just needs people to be there. 10:20, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really want the YT channel to become active then get someone to learn how to use Flash, then animate each podcast. In a manner similar to . 10:23, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick Question: What service would we use to broadcast these episodes? 20:18, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know how long it takes to animate content? There's a reason YT channels that publish animations only bring out one every couple of months. 17:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of proves my point on the reasoning why our YT channel isn't used much. 20:56, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * We could just do stuff like this . I know I made the video for comedic purposes and rushed it, but it actually shows how we could do a couple of things:
 * A) Talk about Multiple Topics
 * B) Use video as, if not anything else, a visual aid
 * C) Add comedy too the podcast
 * I think we should consider using Youtube as a host for our Podcast videos. 01:07, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * So what if we only get the resources to do one or two. It'll be fun and interesting, I can't see why you're opposing on an assumption. As Statistics 1 taught me, correlation does not imply causation. 13:53, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't deny it would be a fun and interesting thing to try. If we don't limit ourselves to Call of Duty, and make it a general wiki community podcast, there could be many things the people could talk about. 20:18, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per N7 and Kat. 18:54, November 25, 2012 (UTC)

17:03, November 26, 2012 (UTC)

19:27, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like this question answered as well. I'm supporting this, but I can't help but wonder how this will be handled. I would love to be a part of the podcasts, I have Skype and everything, but what if there are too many people that want to come and there needs to be limits? Or is it just going to be certain administrators that get to do it? I'd like to know.  Magma-Man  01:27, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

All the yes! PwnY x SN1P3R (talk) 01:48, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave the commentary to Highly Trusted Users and Admins. Gameplay could be open to anyone though. 02:58, November 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think 2 or 3 weeks between Podcasts sounds reasonable to prevent a lack of content or a surplus of it. 22:12, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * One per month should be pretty good. Then we can make a monthly blog about it, have a main page thing, etc. Joe Copp 11:53, November 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * One per month doesn't sound frequent enough to keep people interested, and it wouldn't take an entire month to plan these things. We can do more. 00:17, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Red, twice a month would be better, three week gap at the most. 17:17, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the more regular the podcasts, the better. However, it is also important to stay on the side of caution when being bold and making a schedule. This wiki, along with the rest of the world, is not immune to freak events which change the original plans we have in place. You need to factor in a few days so that even if these events occur, podcasts will still be put out on time. Whats also important is that you don't "overkill" the podcasts. If they're a bi or tri-weekly thing, those responsible for putting them together will undoubtedly get tired of doing. Putting out 30 minutes of footage every few weeks will be a great strain on those peoples lives. DrRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 18:53, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nah, 30 minutes ain't nothing major. I highly doubt that they will get sick of it just like that. I mean, it's not like it's a job, we want to do this and are motivated to do it. The schedule can be a tad flexible to fit the podcasters needs (like pushing it back a day or 2 or whatever is needed) I don't see how it can be taken as a "strain". Plus getting footage would be easy, we have an entire community of gamers to get footage from, I think it would be a bigger problem to pick which footage we want to use. 22:30, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * As I remember correctly, we've planned to put gameplay together before. The reason they all failed? We wouldn't be able to get enough together. What we have is a large group who play the games, but only a small fraction have the tools to turn game playing into game play. Flexibility is a good idea, but I would say you can't anticipate the thoughts of those producing the podcast once its underway. Circumstances change, even if they don't get bored. Things get in the way. Hopefully flexible scheduling should combat this, but you never can be sure. DrRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 20:08, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we ought to have a span of around a week or so for whoever is participating in the podcast to submit their audio files? Joe Copp 20:10, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * So that means whoever is in the podcast is recording their audio and then sends it to whoever is going to put it all together? And another question, footage? What do y'all mean by that? 21:40, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think he was referring to other media, SXe Fiend. And I think there will be times that some wiki members will have a recorded conversation together, and others when they will submit a pre-recorded response. It depends on the people and the circumstances. Joe Copp 10:54, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I understand now. 20:52, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Who will host/edit/record the podcast? 23:46, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I could edit it, if we did Video or Audio format as I have programs that make it simple yet effective and know how to use them. 02:59, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I believe this would be very fun, and would be successful as well! 22:42, December 4, 2012 (UTC)

Brainstorming segment format

 * Initial, quick rundown of news or stories.
 * "Thumbs-up/Thumbs-down" - Commentate the stories, recent developments in Call of Duty, or gaming in general, prefaced with a "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down." (Ex: "Thumbs down for Activision for eating my children last weekend. This did not go far enough, and I would have rather seen them incinerated. I really think they need to rethink their business strategy.")
 * Rundown/discussion of wiki events, war room, or other community features
 * Miscellaneous banter

All I can think of for the moment... 00:19, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

I would think it would be better if the conversation was more natural, unscheduled if you will. We'd have a list of topics we would have to talk about, but not specifically in any order. The only thing I would agree on, ordering wise, is too keep the miscellaneous banter at the end of the podcast, but maybe allow it too be peppered into to other parts as well.


 * Per Damac. Having it Unscheduled but having a topic list does seem better with the banter would be at the end of it all. 18:00, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * So, something like the RT podcast? (have list of several topics, discussion about them, etc).-23:32, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Damac, you should have a topic list, but don't plan out your discussion about the topics. It works somewhat(?) well for the Roosterteeth podcast, should work great here. 22:31, November 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the RT sytle varies too much for us. Their podcast is mainly about gaming/pop-culture in general, whereas we'd be more focused on Call of Duty, then have the RT style at the end. 23:49, December 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, this wasn't so much as to make it formulaic and boring, but rather to have a method of discussion to lean on for proper flow. All of these would be represented as just topic lists without any "scheduled" or "scripted" dialogue, but discussion does need to have some structure to an extent, mostly for a) preventing people from talking over one another, and b) streamlining that natural conversation so it can make sense within the context of an audio program.


 * "Thumbs-up/Thumbs-down" is just what you are talking about with a name and some minor detail given to it. There is a mediator and a panel, and the panel gives their opinions prefaced in short form, and then explained more naturally. It's still very informal, even for the most professional radio broadcasters. 00:12, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should go about it as radio shows do, where they have a list of things to talk about, but they don't go about it in a business-type way. It's a very natural and humorous conversation, that kidna just flows, and generally isn't structured other than the list of topics. Joe Copp 21:45, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * ^ This, I think the podcast should have a very laid back flow to it, but could still have a list of topics to reference whenever. 22:34, November 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Joe Copp and Redskin.
 * Per Joe and Redskin. I would have said pretty much the same thing if you didn't beat me to it. Sounds perfect to me.  Magma-Man  07:27, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per Red and Joey. -- 16:18, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Like Drk pointed out above, we're going to have to have somebody that almost exclusively works on this podcast alone. Unless we have some sort of "project leader," the whole thing's going to go down the drain in a few months. What we need to do is find somebody that wants to do little but work on this podcast--the production, compilation, recordings, etc.--and have them manage most of the work to be done. This should preferably be someone with experience both on-wiki and with media software, but volunteers would most definitely be accepted. Would you others agree with me that we should have some sort of project leader for this? At the very least we need to designate somebody to be in charge of it each month, if it's not the same person each time. Joe Copp 10:54, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

People Doing the Podcast
Everyone seems to be being a bit modest and not wanting too say "I would like too be on the Podcast". So let's actually get people to say they want too do it. I believe we should go with Kat's idea of only Admins and Highly Trusted users being allowed to be on the Podcast. And yes, I would like to partake in the podcast. 03:03, December 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I would love to be a part of it, and I'm pretty sure I'm a "Highly Trusted user." Although I feel a bit shaky calling myself that. Could an admin clarify as to wether or not I qualify?  Magma-Man  05:33, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally would say you do. --MLGisNot4Me talk 10:07, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to have a way of making a clear-cut decision or it'll never be fair. Joe Copp 10:11, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well I really hate to be that guy, but alas, I shall. For something such as this we're gonna have to have people who at least sound mature/act mature. I'm not entirely sure how we're going to set up a system to assure a quality 'team'. If we don't commit to the quality and have half the wiki on the 'team' there's no point to having a podcast. I stand by my suggestion to have admins only/A VERY highly trusted user. How a user will be noted as such is up for debate. 10:29, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to suggest holding auditions, but perhaps we can hold auditions of some sort? 20:09, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't want too suggest this, but let me suggest this" :3. In all seriousness, Auditions isn't the worst bad idea. But then what would be the judging criteria? Who would be the judges? 23:46, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...we would need the most respected and trusted and honest users we have. -- 12:37, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I didn't want to suggest it. Also, you forgot me on that list   12:49, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * hi 09:37, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

I very much love it if I was able to be in the podcast, but I believe we need to set up a criteria of what makes a user highly trusted before anything else gets settled. 20:02, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

I've wanted to be a part of it from the start. I'm pretty sure I would qualify as a trusted user as well. 22:02, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * You qualify as an admin :p 23:32, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Can this be double checked? I'm not sure I trust your analysis. 03:01, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * My mama already had me analyzed thank you very much. 03:22, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

While I think an "audition" like system could be added, we'd need to figure out a way to structure it: Should we have set judges or rotational? How many judges' approval does one need to get through? How will we judge them? etc. I have full confidence it can work, but only if we streamline it. My personal ideals are we need three judges at a time, they rotate (maybe every week - month) with others with a 2/3 majority to get through. Not fully sure about how to go about auditions, but, I'm sure somebody else will have an idea. 03:01, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. 03:45, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd be overjoyed if I could take part, also with regards to who else can do it, we should limit it to admins/highly trusted (decided by those doing the podcast for sure) users to begin with. The thing I don't want is for anyone to feel left out, so long as we try to give everyone as big a chance as possible then I'm fine with whatever is done. 12:44, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to offer my services as the podcast recorder/call host/guy who hosts the audio files of the podcast. 12:49, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to do one at least at some time. 14:40, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think it was already mentioned above (forget by who) that we should have sort of a project leader. I think that this project leader should also serve as some sort of Moderator of the podcast, to kinda lead discussion along and such. 21:11, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

Batman's awesome Idea - Similar to our news schedule. We should have the users that do the news as the people who do the podcast and follow the schedule as usual. Anyone agree? 21:13, December 6, 2012 (UTC)