This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The contents of the Public, educational, and government access page were merged into Public-access television on 17 January 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

	Public-access television is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 30, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Haven't been able to find information about Franchise Fees. If originally the stations were supposed to be funded by the cable companies, when did it become allowable for the cable companies to pass this cost on in this manner?

• I think this info will be hard to document, franchise fees are contracted currently on a city by city basis, each municipality would negotiate for percentages of revenue independently of others. This is likely to become a state-side or even national franchise structure some time in the future. Great starting resource is here, though I am not sure how Wikipedia community would accept a personal blog as a source: BloggingBroadband -- Sean Effel 01:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Not funded by franchise fees in all states. Tendency has been to centralize franchise fees at the state level taking away local control from city and county. Actually what is going on is a Corptocracy of centralized control of PEG channels where taxes go up at state and local levels and the citizens of cities and towns lose access to their local public access TV cable channel to exercise their 1st amendment rights to freedom of speech to speak citizen to citizen within a community. Example: WNC Community Media Center - Asheville Buncombe County - http://www.wnccmc.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasereye ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Worked in cable access for a decade and can tell you from my history that most cable access is still funded largely by franchise fees. Television service companies that are geographically centered have changed their billing practices to list "franchise fees" on bills in order to garner community support for lowering those fees.

Petepo ( talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)petepo reply

It seems this article addresses too many topics even though they are all very closely related to each other. It seems there is content here about PEG access, Internet 'television', citizen journalism, FCC policy, Canadian community channels, and more. To be truly academic about all this content, I believe we should rebuild this one article into many separate articles that are branched appropriately. I'll start this process by suggesting a new stucture for all this material.

The parent article I'm going to suggest as "Citizen Media" (not citizen journalism) just as an inclusive term to represent all forms of media created by private individuals rather than private companies or corporations. My vocabulary stands to be reworked if there is a more inclusive term for this trend. The following branches I believe should be parallel unter this citizen media umbrella:

Access Television in the USA (History, US Legislation, Public, Educational, Government, LO, Practice, Trends, Resources)

Community Channel in Canada (History, CA Legislation, etc, Resources)

Community Technology Center (CTC) USA (Etc)

Citizen Journalism (Internet as television, Blogging, podcasting, etc, Resources)

So on and so forth.

This will categorize the different models of citizen produced media and help separate content into the category it belongs, strengthening all of our efforts to document these very different topics in wikipedia (and do it in a way that is inline with wikipedia methods of documentation). It also leaves open the stucture to add more parallel articles on Citizen media, such as Digital Storytelling and other community media production models that haven't been documented yet.

Please comment! -Sean Effel 10/3/2006

I think that it's a good crack at the article structure above but I might break it down differently if I was creating the structure from scratch. In my mind the following makes a lot of sense. I like this format as it's easy to identify what organization fits into what catagory with the category being operationalized by municipal funding or subsidizing of either: distribution, management, or production of local video primarily intended for geographically specific cable distribution.

[Cable Access, United States] -[Public Access] -[Government Access] -[Educational Access]

There are already really good articles dedicated to production formats of Citizen Media and we can branch for various historically important cable access allies. Sound good? Petepo ( talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)petepo reply

I tried to do something of the sort for us but had someone revert it to an even earlier version than the one I'd tried subplanting it with. DavidWJohnson 05:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

To make it work, you'll have to create the branch pages before you remove any content. Take a look at Citizen media and the edits I made this afternoon. - Sean 10/4

First, the contributions from the MCAM TV-23 public access coordinator in Manchester, NH to change the text below the entry's image of a t.v. from, "Fill in the Blank" (ala, make public access into what you will.) to "Community Media," and again to "Media Belongs to Everyone" is duly noted.

It was a much better choice vs. one in the past where they erased another's contribution of a Public Access Weblog with no explanation. One could see how maybe they thought the information contained there to be redundant, but it still contained information exclusive and encyclopedic to the entry. The originators of Channel Z &/or he could make an entry for Channel Z.

Channel Z isn't public access though but internet t.v. Public access depends upon agreements between cities, counties, & cable companies &/or what will be telecommunications companies. Channel Z depends on its webmaster. One could see his noble efforts in supporting the proliferation of internet t.v., and connecting this with his contributions that they have made some of their channel's output downloadable. But the two are totally separate entities.

One could then contest that if Channel Z doesn't belong, then the 411 Show link doesn't belong either, or that the link for Matt Hawes's The Happy Show on Sigecom ch 9 & Insight ch 7 in Evansville, IN doesn't belong either. The 411 Show's a unique case, where there public access was the first under the governments new rules to get cancelled.

Therefore, they took their public access structure and carried it right over to the internet, where among other things they are specifically educating others with information that may help them avoid a similar fate too. True, like Channel Z their 411 Show internet show isn't under a franchise, but unlike Channel Z it very well could be if the government's rules are reversed, and they get to do public access again under a franchise involving the city, county, and a telecommunications company vs. the older cable company. Therefore, their inclusion on the entry may serve an encyclopedic purpose.

Matt Hawes's The Happy Show, although a real show, in the encyclopedic sense is a basic ea. possibly for the entry. This show could be swapped with another basic show in the same sense on a regular basis. The link isn't meant to plug him, but to provide in the basic sense an ea. of a public access show. One could now replace it with another one and give the above reason for doing so. DavidWJohnson 23:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'll argue that the caption below the television is not entirely correct, though I do see the message you want to make. Media itself is intellectual property, when I think you actually want to talk about the communications systems on which media is transported. It is more appropriate to say something like the "airwaves" or "bandwidth" or something like that. "The spectrum belongs to everyone". - Seaneffel

And second, I think this Channel Z might be filed in the wrong place. Public Access, by definition and legislation, is a legal mandate pertaining only to cable television and cable television technologies (and the contracting and franchising with individual municipalities). This article is about public access as an institution, PEG shows should have their own pages because there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of them. I also see what you are getting at with the web-based media contribution, but I think this article needs to branch again into a separate article about emerging community media technologies. "Community Media" is a more inclusive term that can better cover web-based community oriented media without associating it with a specific technology or market (or even decade). I'll suggest you rethink how to organize a new page like this so that it includes your contribute and I can help you get started. - Seaneffel

Thanks for the comments. Basically though, I think the picture shouldn't be the t.v. but a basic picture conveying what public access is. If that picture could be of a t.v. actually showing an audio/visiual mini-segment loop, possible through html embedded coding, I think that would be perfect. But until one produces that picture I think the one their now suffices. As far as the caption goes, I think it should just say, "Public Access," but I think the current one's ok, and I don't think I should mess with the gentleman's contribution from NH.

Speaking of the gentleman from NH, he's removed his channel from the channel links section, and now only has a mention of it in the trivia one. I don't know if he meant to do that or if he meant to make his only mention a non-link. If I were him I would remove the mention from the trivia section and just put a basic link in the channel links section. DavidWJohnson 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Public access is at a very delicate crossroads, because of lots of reasons, and its important that new visitors to this article get "just the facts" and aren't flooded with tags and slogans for who the "best" and "first" access centers were.

An anonymous user continues to write vanity comments into the body of the article. This is firstly plain vanity and serves only to improve an organization's or individual's reputation, secondly it is unsupported original research since other users have claimed that not 100% of their programming is actually available, thirdly miscategorized under the "future of access" section, and forthly does not further contribute to the understanding of what PEG is. I have re-written the comment and placed it in the "Trivia" section, since this user is so persistent we can at least remove the unsupported claims and file it correctly.

I read that the FCC no longer requires from the cable companies to provide Public Access, is this true?

Not yet, but that day may be coming. Follow http://www.saveaccess.org to get the answer to this question. - Sean Effel

If that list of public access centers grows any larger then it should be moved to another page. No reason to crowd the page with linkage. I would do that myself but haven't sorted out how to make new wiki pages. Should also ask contributors to name the 'flavor' of access they are (ie P, E, G, PE, PG, GE, etc).

Yes, you are correct. There are no longer any rules protecting public access television from being eliminated in communities. Actually, it is already happening all across the country. Channels are being bumped or cancelled without prior notice. The best way to prevent this is to contact your local/state/national representatives and demand that public access continue to be a valued part of our communications and media system in this country.

There are bills currently in congress that will effectively eliminate access--public, educational and governmental--on a national level. Please check out www.alliancecm.org for more information about public access rules, and the threats to this very important form of expression. 4.152.90.222 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Free Press ( http://www.freepress.net) is also a good source for more information and seems to be more active and have more momentum on this front than the ACM.

How can we change the name of this article to be more inclusive? Public access is just a part of the topic.

I think it should be the other way around. To be logical, there should be a parent article about Media Reform, and Public Access should be a child or branch from there. Other child articles would include internet media movements, FCC and legislation, the Cable Act, and all of the sub-efforts of Media Reform. - Sean Effel 10/2/2006

This page needs a disambiguation for the 1993 movie Public Access

why does the reader have to wade 4 paragraphs deep into this fun filled article just to figure out wtf "PEG" means?-- Deglr6328 06:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC) reply

• I moved the PEG acronym to the top sentence of the page for you and other visitors. Good point. - Seaneffel 02 Aug 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Mystery Science Theater 3000 starting on public access, as it started on KTMA TV in Minneapolis, a commercial UHF station, not a public access channel. PersonalityCult 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC) reply

HISTORY

Could Bill Olson be e-mailed, wherefore he could consent to his History of Public Access being used under a new section entitled "History" for the public access listing? I'd started to consolidate his history and change enough to maybe make it not a copyright violation, but his history reads so well in whole I think that it could be great to have it added to the list. I know that there's already a link to the history on the listing, but I think the history belongs under a "History" section for the listing. It may require for one sentence to be added or dropped from the second paragraph of "Principles of PEG."

I tried to figure out if you'd see this idea on your talk page Seaneffel, but it maybe looked like you didn't have anything there. And, I'm still getting use to wikipedia in general, and for personal reasons don't want to become a member yet. But, I think the Canadians deserve mention for what Mr. Olson basically says in his history that we have them to thank for it.

Finally, with a history section I sincerely think that the entry would maybe be perfect, and would read great to say a kid using it for a book report.

ETC.

Seaneffel, thanks for your comment about liking the rewording of my readdition on franchise wording. Thanks also for restructuring much of what I've said vs. totally erasing it as, in all due respect, some others have done. It helps me learn too, and I've learned more about how to do things on wiki.

You're welcome, glad I can contribute. I would suggest that Bill Olson gets his own page dedicated to this history of access. I believe you can reprint his article, without edits, and credit him with authorship. This is the appropriate academic way to skip the wait of getting permission. Unless, of course, his work is a commercial item for sale, then you risk liability and damages. Link the new Bill Olson page from the PEG page and we're good to go.- Seaneffel

Personality Cult, thanks for clarifying that MST3K was never a public access t.v. show.

According to the listing under public access, down in the trivia section, Canada has community television. Yet in Bill Olson's History of public access it possibly alludes to Canada having already had that prior to the 60s, and that eventually it did get public access also. Maybe, they still have both. According to a Canadian I talked to they at least have community television still. Also, the listing for community television states that Tom Green started out on one. Yet if community television only shows stuff they want to show I couldn't see them showing Tom Green. So maybe he was actually on Public access in Canada. Could one clarify if or if not Canada has one or the other or both? Thanks. David W. Johnson 8/29/06

I've failed this article's good article nomination for the same reason I opposed it in the FA nomination. The lead is too short, the article is filled with one paragraph sections, and is completely devoid of references. I also happened to notice that there is a trivia section, which violates WP:AVTRIV. The Filmaker 20:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I am afraid the GA process is clear - if the nomination is failed by just one person with legitimate reasons, it remains failed. The above are mostly legitimate reasons (except for the one-paragraph section thing), and there are much more (the article is flooded with external links, for example). I would like to add that most articles which would fail at FAC would also fail at GAN, as the basic criteria are very similar. In case you have any reservations concerning, you can seek a GA Review, though this is actually very clear, not compliant with a few of the Good Article criteria (I recommend you to get acquainted with them in more detail).

Please understand that the GA system is by definition based on single-person reviews, so you cannot expect more than one person to review it, even if you do not like a particular reviewer. Regards, Bravada, talk - 21:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Err, actually, I don't think there's a limit on how fast you can nominate articles. The way I see it, if a real dispute over it came up, WP:GA/R would cover it then. Homestarmy 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no limit, but we need to apply common sense there too. The article wasn't changed anyway since it was failed, so re-nominating is pointless. Bravada, talk - 21:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I had a quick look at the lead, I'm afraid that I can't make sense of it. Too many buz words, which don't make sense to someone from the UK. -- Salix alba ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

No references is enough to fail it. TimVickers 22:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Now, the picture of the spinning earth is nice with a heartwarming message 'n' all, but it doesn't seem to me to be encyclopedic in tone or NPOV. What exactly does the spinning Planet Earth have to do with community media? We could put the spinning globe image on the Coca-Cola or IBM or Hollywood pages and have a message about how people all round the world enjoy Coke or use IBM products to solve their problems or like to watch Hollywood movies. I think the message is misleading too... I don't think the output of the Manhattan Neighborhood Network [1] belongs to, or is identified with, the citizens of Budapest, Kinshasa or Bali for instance. So, unfortunately for the nice image, I'm taking it out of this article for tone/POV issues. Bwithh 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

• • btw, the Manhattan Neighborhood Network article has been lazily created as an empty stub. Needs work.... Bwithh 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't figure out what the following paragraph is supposed to mean:

Municipalities or cable operators may attempt to end local PEG access by calling upon rules by the FCC. that further regulate broadcast content. For example, Janet Jackson's appearance at the 2004 Super Bowl, and Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech. The new regulations laid out by the FCC apply to broadcast television and affiliates only, because broadcast television is available for free public viewership and faces heavier regulation whereas cable television (and PEG) are cable services and are subject to different regulations.

The problems are:

1. The FCC did not get involved in taking action with regard to Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech, so I don't know why this was even mentioned. By contrast, the FCC assessed $550,000 in fines in regard to the Janet Jackson incident.
2. The second part of the paragraph states that the FCC regulations apply only to broadcast television, not cable services on which PEG access programs appear, contradicting the idea that municipalities or cable operators might use those regulations to shut down PEG access.

-- Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

(RE:1.) Exactly! Yet critics of Public Access television have and do use this to say Public Access has to be pre-screened (which is a major violation of first admendment rights.). By contrast, if Janet Jackson can figure in with the issue then why erase the mention entirely vs. keeping it. Insight cable in Evansville, IN actually said the new FCC rules applied to Public Access (when in reality it didn't but applies to Broadcast television.) and used it as a reason to justify prescreening Public Access saying that the FCC had cracked down on them with new rules because of Janet Jackson and similiar things.

(RE:2.) Exactly! It's sad but true. But they 'do' use those regulations to try and shut down PEG access. That was my point. I've tried to polish the mention in the article to make this clearer. Thanks for your contributions on the article. I don't know if you only came across it because you'd wrote an article about the Academy Awards, but it's always good to see someone take an interest in Public Access television. Thanks again.

I added some other countries where Public Access Television is done which didn't fall under the articles for Canada and Australia. It's important for people to know that Public Access is global and not only in the US. I also added Guerrilla Television to the See also section because an administrator told me to link that article with other articles. Guerrilla television was a precursor to Public Access television and thus serves as a link as he asked. Your Brother in Christ, DavidWJohnson 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC) reply

From the above content. I think you mean to point out that there are concessions for citizens to access media infrastructure all over the world. However, "Public Access Television" is the legal definition of the structure in the United States. This is why I refined the Citizen Media article, as a more inclusive, global term since Public Access Television doesn't exist in law in Australia, its legally called something else. You should start new child articles from Citizen Media about those countries. -- Sean Effel 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• good point, great decision to remove content, it doesn't apply here. -- Sean Effel 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I still don't understand what Michael Moore's Academy Awards speech has to do with the issues covered in this article. If one of the editors who believe it's relevant could provide some sources indicating so, that would help. -- Metropolitan90 03:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I removed Michael Moore. DavidWJohnson 19:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Agreed, good decision. - Sean

This entire section seems like an attack on the cable industry. I don't know enough about it to neutralize it (don't know what is going on on cable's side) but it just sounded very biased. Kyouteki 18:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

• I edited that section for biased comments. It was important to maintain that cable company business is a threat to PEG and orgs have always risked budget slashes from large media corporations, but the focus should be more clear in the second paragraph. Access is a mission oriented movement and technology (cable and radio vs. internet and blogs) are just tools. I removed the POV tag, don't know if that is the appropriate way to do it. Lemme know. -- Sean Effel 08:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The initial description that says the cable company is required to provide equipment and training for Public Access is NOT, I believe correct! By law, the only thing the cable companies are required to provide are one or more Channels for PEG with a return path for uploading.

Smart municipalities negotiate with a prospective franchisee for equipment and facilities. In New York State, the Public Service Commission regulates the granting of franchises. See Cable Regulations of the NYS PSC, section 895 covers what is required. Section 895.4 specifically includes no censorship by either cable company or municipality in operating the Public Access channel. The municipality may operate the Public Access channel or may at any time grant the control to another entity; if the municipality does not operate the channel itself or assign an entity to do it, then the cable company must operate it.

Under these circumstances, all the cable company has to provide is an upload facility for some form of appropriate media.

In general a franchise should be available for viewing in one's Town/City Hall. Unless the law's changed a cable company has to provide equipment, help, and production up to 5 minutes. After that one has to pay for the services. Yet, one's still allowed to turn in a show longer than 5 minutes of course, which is why usually most shows are 30 to 60 minutes long, but the 5 minute stipulation with complete support at cost free's all the cable company has to do beyond showing public access shows.

Therefore, an ideal scenario's when the local gov and cable co work together to find a non profit media group to run the channel. Finally, public access tv's paid for by we the people. Our tax dollars pay for it. Secondly, when the cable companies first asked for right of way to put up their wires over peoples homes, they agreed with the understanding that since they were freely receiving that space, that they would freely grant tv channels to citizens. Public access belongs to us. Not the cable companies. Yet, sometime the cable company ends up running it. Sometimes, since they're already heavily taxed with their day to day work, public access suffers or gets no support.

Nevertheless, the cable company's still obligied to fully support public access, but they don't have to grant anymore besides showing one's show or the free 5 minutes. Lastly, I'd be interested in how many people have used the 5 free minutes opition. One of our local cable companies doesn't mention it in their guidelines, but it is in the franchise. When, I wrote them about using it once, they say they lost the letter and that was that. The other cable company mentions it in the guidelines, but when they recently had problems showing my show on both dvd and vhs, I requested the 5 free minute option. I didn't receive a reply back, but my next vhs tape played just fine. Good luck. DavidWJohnson —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The fcc does apply this usage.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Redirects

For any redirects that are not speedy deletion candidates, use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. In some cases it may be possible to make a useful redirect by changing the target instead of deleting it.

1. Redirects to deleted pages and to nonexistent pages.
2. Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space (this does not include the Wikipedia shortcut pseudo-namespaces). If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect.
3. Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages.

wikipedia : criteria for speedy deletion

wikipedia:stub types for deletion

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience:

 00:20, 2 November 2007 KieferSkunk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Peg public educational governmental television program programming" ? (Speedy deleted per (CSD R3), was a redirect based on an implausible typo. using TW)

Truth is not plausible??

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Nobody would type, search for, or use as a link the complicated and meaningless phrase "peg public educational governmental television program programming". 131.111.8.96 17:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hu12 and Beetstra, please note that this article was a "featured article candidate" and endured that review process without the removal of the list of Public Access organizations at the bottom. Some organizations had started mis-using that list, posting myspace pages and other non-relevant information, but Beetstra was lazy to react by simply removing the entire list, which happens to be the most comprehensive list of Public Access TV stations anywhere on the Internet.

I went through every listing and removed any superfluous information beyond the organization name, channels, and area served. If you have any more feedback as to how the community can help keep that list spam-free and Kosher with the Wikipedia policies, please let us know. This article is referenced frequently as a resource to find Public Access TV stations, and even after reading the policies Beetstra referenced in his/her deletion, it seems that this list should be permitted, so long as it is kept clean of self-promotional information. Tony Shawcross, Denver, CO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.33.63 ( talk) 08:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome. Perhaps your unfamiliar what wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY-- Hu12 ( talk) 08:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I am familiar with what Wikipedia is, and am trying to contribute and respect the process. Most contributors don't eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia HU12, and that doesn't mean they don't know what it is, or have anything to offer. I'll read the areas you referenced again. If we end up having to remove it, we need a link/reference to an alternative location for this info. Perhaps http://mappingaccess.com/ Unfortunately, neither Mapping Access nor the ACM site has even nearly as comprehensive a list as Wikipedia, nor is it possible for stations to add themselves at the ACM's site. 70.59.33.63 ( talk) 09:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Tony Shawcross reply

If Wikipedia isn't a directory, that looks an awful lot like an attempt to create one. – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The list does not seem to conflict with Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY nor Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. If anything, the problem seems to be with Wikipedia:External_links, in which case, the links themselves should be removed, not the list of stations. It is important to maintain a list of Public Access stations in the US, and this was a major accomplishment of this article, that over 150 independent access stations have logged-in and contributed to this article. -- deproduction ( talk)

Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. This directory conflicts with the policies Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. This stuff does not belong in an encyclopedia.-- Hu12 ( talk) 03:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Policies regarding lists are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists

Well over 1,000 approved wikipedia lists are posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dynamic_lists

Some especially comparable lists that are approved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_musicians Includes hundreds of obscure musicians with no more significance than the TV stations on this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics_companies Contains a list with external links to for-profit companies with no more social significance than these TV stations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J-pop_artists Includes hundreds of links to obscure japanese pop artists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_magazines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cemeteries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_console_role-playing_games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companies_listed_on_the_Toronto_Stock_Exchange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_named_after_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_magazines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_companies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bulgarian_musicians_and_singers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_anarchists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mexican_Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pocket_PC_Devices

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_published_in_Indonesia

Clearly, thousands of Wikipedia editors disagree with you that these kinds of lists do not belong in an encyclopedia. If the content somehow needs to be revised to meet the policies of wikipedia, please help us edit it, instead of lazily and randomly selecting this list for deletion, when there are thousands of others on Wikipedia that are essentially identical. Deproduction ( talk) 17:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other link-directories in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding link-directories to any article. Plenty of link-directories exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many "List of's.." don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that other link-directories exist in other articles doesn't prove that Public-access_television#Public_access_organizations should also exist.

• Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY ; "Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia'.

• Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY ; " Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc."

Clearly Public-access_television#Public_access_organizations does not abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines. Your obviously attempting to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Guidelines such as those mentioned above are generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Your tendentious editing is operating toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors. Despite opposition and cited policy from one or more established editors you are engaging in an edit war in an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force.-- Hu12 ( talk) 17:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Then please get some other editors involved, maybe some of them will take a slightly more constructive approach and help suggest ways that this list can be revised to meet policies. Clearly with THOUSANDS of similar lists on WikiPedia, there is a place for this kind of list, and I can't understand why you refuse to be at all constructive in finding alternative approach to maintaining this information in Wikipedia.

I'm not referencing one or two similar lists on wikipedia, I'm referencing thousands of articles that represent a clear consensus in Wikipedia that there IS A PLACE for such lists in Wikipedia. The original list clearly contained spam, but I am trying to contribute, revising this list extensively in an attempt to comply with all policies as I interpret them, and you are hastily deleting important information from the article. Its clear we have a different interpretation of the policies, which is why I requested Editor arbitration and suggest we get several other opinions.

I appreciate that today you have chosen not to hastily revert, but to first discuss this here. Lets see what some other people with your level of experience think, taking all this information into account Deproduction ( talk) 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

So far two adminisrators have chimed in regarding the addition, the third admin (Beetstra) obviously was not in favor of its inclusion as evidenced by proxy. Certainly opinions can change, I won't speak for others, but any reasonable editor can see thusfar that this contradicts you last edit (today) stating " there is no consensus for removing this list..." and by no means could this discussion be consrude or intrpereted as a consensus for its inclusion. More troubling is your confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]}.-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It is well-accepted that Wikipedia is not a directory. If this were a list of organizations that had their own Wikipedia articles (a blue-linked list) there might be a reason for keeping it. However nearly all the entries here are external links. This kind of a list has been shot down elsewhere for good reasons. Lists consisting of external links are often viewed as a form of advertising, and inappropriate for our articles. The fact that no other websites provide an adequate list of these organizations doesn't prevent anyone from creating such a helpful website. If so, it is conceivable that we might link to it. Or User:Deproduction might consider submitting these links at DMOZ. It is accepted that we can link to DMOZ in lieu of swallowing a whole bunch of new links. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Ed. I agree that as I looked through dozens of other pages that had lists, the majority were links to internal Wikipedia pages. Many of these TV stations certainly should have their own Wikipedia page, others could perhaps just be plain text with no link to their external home-page... I'd like to take guidance from any of the hundreds of other pages listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dynamic_lists

Some of those (like this page) have been nominated as good or featured articles, and have been edited by thousands of editors with no objection to the lists they contain. Please do look at some of them and let me know which (if any) could be a role model for this list. I'll help revise the content to meet that guidance, and we can continue expanding this valuable list of stations working in much the same way wikipedia is to expand the diversity of knowledge available to the public. Deproduction ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Since you believe that the list, if it is allowed, will hold its head high among other Wikipedia lists that are well-thought-of, please consider this section of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and consider whether there are adequate references to justify the list of public-access TV stations:

(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations (see verifiability and reliable sources); this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out and, where appropriate, complemented by inline citations.

How can the current entries be verified? Is it your view that if a station has a website and claims to be public access, then it is included, with no need for independent verification? EdJohnston ( talk) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Deproduction and myself are high stakeholders in the publication of this list of PEG access centers for many reasons. It is important on a number of fronts to have a publicly accessible list of PEG organizations so that readers of the PEG article can learn of the immense quantity and quality of PEG resources, channels, content and support. Many people in the US believe that PEG access is one of t he remaining frontiers of democracy in our digital age since these are not only organizations that are independently operated but also have clearly defined missions to champion over free speech and diversity of ideas and people in the country. The list is very important.

That being said, Wikipedia should not be used as a base camp for political positioning as it would dilute the integrity of this resource as a neutral, cited and verifiable body of work. I want that massive list of PEG organizations to be public and to grow organically but it is clear that Wikipedia is not the place to host it. Our PEG community should take some time to find the most appropriate place to host that list, hopefully in a format that can be updated on-the-go by visitors. Then once we have that list hosted elsewhere, we will make a permanent external link from this Wikipedia article to that other host, and let it go.

I am reverting this article to an earlier state which includes this list so I can copy/paste its content into a permanent place, will work on a new home, and report back. I might suggest that we create a "short list" of the large PEG access centers, possibly using operating budget, cable subscriber base, notable PEG organizations in history, etc. This way the listing of the PEG center is informative to the topic of PEG Access Television.-- Sean Effel ( talk) 20:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

It sounds like we are moving towards an acceptable compromise. Instead of keeping the old version in place, the one with the full list of stations, can I suggest that you work from the permanent link http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Public-access_television&oldid=181691789 ? This link will continue to open up the version with the list even if further changes are made. If Sean is agreeable to this plan, perhaps he can revert his latest change. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I've reverted back. the discussion has turned Apples into oranges. It would be better form to create a Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). This facilitates both Public-access television complying with Wikipedia:NOT#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY, while alowing List of public access organizations to stand on its own merits. -- Hu12 ( talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

In principle having a properly sourced Wikipedia list would work, as you say. The issue in my mind is that it will be next to impossible to get reliable sources to back up the list entries. (The list that used to be here was simply a list of the websites of the public access groups and had no external verification of anything). I'd have no objection if a properly-sourced list could really be created. The operating budget, cable subscriber base etc. would be good to have, but I bet they could only be sourced from the websites of the stations, and thus not reliable. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Those points are probably better served being discussed on Talk:List of public access organizations, than here. Certainly seems there will be some work needed, however Wikipedia policy is quite clear: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor(s) seeking to include it.-- Hu12 ( talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I have edited a lot of these, and will continue to do so, but it is not good for a Wikipedia reader to be reading entries, or edited entries, that is written like a thinly masked complaint about the policies or staff decisions of a particular PA facility as if it applies universally to all PA facilities. PA facilities may be similar, but they are not uniform in their rules or operational procedures. A specific disagreement that an individual or group has with a public access facility should not be presented as a problem, issue or challenge to PATV as a whole. Nor should opinions be entered that may lead the reader to believe that event "A" triggered an situation that led to outcome "B", when this situation only occurred at a finite number of facilities and does not affect the procedures of another. Ocpatv ( talk) 05:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

So as of right now this page features the {{ redirect}} hatnote on top of the article as " public access" redirects here. I suggest we create a disambiguation page instead as "public access" is a broad term that applies to many things and imo isn't even most often used in that form to refer to "public-access television".

For instance a major use of the term refers to public access to various kinds of so far unpublic information - such as by data held by corporations or governments. (Various relevant pages exist for that.)

I didn't create a disambiguation page straight away mainly due to many articles pointing here (maybe due to a template?).

-- Fixuture ( talk) 10:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply

I propose to merge Public, educational, and government access into Public-access television. The two articles contain redundant information, and the combined article can be trimmed as needed. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 00:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  Y  Merger complete. Klbrain ( talk) 12:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

It would be informative if this article gave the number (or an estimate) of channels there are. Kdammers ( talk) 13:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply