@keunes - Would you have any interest to keep the content on AntennaPod somewhat up to date?
Maybe we can update it once every quarter?
cc @ByteHamster as a FYI.
Be careful with changing the Wikipedia entry. It says:
This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view.
I hope that they don’t delete it when the article gets attention because of the edit.
We just need to be factual. For example, the names for the maintainer has changed now to you, so that should be reflected.
It is probably better to remove the promotional links to where the app was mentioned
We do have to cite media coverage about AntennaPod, though:
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for products and services. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention.
Not sure what media coverage is considered promotional and what not. I mean, most independent articles about AntennaPod are more or less promoting the app.
There are other WP:Reliable sources than media coverage. Getting/finding articles in the press writing on AntennaPod would be great though.
With the major release 2.0.0, this thread discussed creating a press release, attempts at reaching out with it and mentions some of the (seemingly rather limited) coverage obtained. There is also a point on antennapod.org/contribute/promote suggesting to repeat that endeavor. Attempting to reach out to media to get press coverage is great and all, but not always easy to succeed with.
However journalists also do search for interesting stories, and might already stumble upon AntennaPod occasionally. Whenever that happens, maybe having a well phrased antennapod.org/press, and linking to it from the front page, might be one thing missing to help writers considering it worth attempting to make contact?
What’s more than attracting attention to the quality checks by updating the article, is the vested interest that I would have in the editing of the article. So while I agree it would be good to update, I don’t think it should be anyone of the core contributors (i.e. all of us replying here).
I’m wondering if we should put on a call out on our social media to see if any of our users/wider community members might pick it up. What do y’all think about this?
I’d also note that even the articles of major players in the field are also stubs: List of podcast clients - Wikipedia So the fact that it’s a stub isn’t too surprising.
If anyone might be interested in updating the page, we should probably also point them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Apps - Wikipedia This project is there to improve the quality of app pages, and also contains some tips.
Though related that’s another story, which I think would deserve a separate thread, or issue in the website repo. (But yes, I agree.)
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.