Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged. I've never looked up student newspapers though. I'd say there's a good chance they're ok. You should check it out. ... does this mean The Journal of Experimental Psychology or Science or the New England Journal of Medicine are discouraged a reliable sources? (Since they require a subscription?) ... just trying to understand ... Richard -- Richard http://richardhhall.org Shows http://richardshow.org http://inspiredhealing.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
So does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my article in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.ht\ ml?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidtCOLLECTION=wsjie/6month . It is a creditable source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a member of wsj.com. Also what about the article that Josh Leo, Ryann, Sunny, Jay, I from the University of Illinois student newspaper http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30\ /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\ 078.shtml ? Is that creditable? So could I put those 2 sources on the vlog wiki? My guess is no, because of the WIKIPI Police.. but that is fine with me. This is just kind of funny to me...but interested subject. Nick --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to set a standard so how low should they set it? Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because Wikipedia is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I can see that they are highly discouraged, because you have to pay money to view the source...not everyone can view them..and the list goes on.. but they are still HIGHLY creditable...LOL .. so why can't I put them?? what do you mean check it out? They are creditable...done. Check and done. Nick --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged. I've never looked up student newspapers though. I'd say there's a good chance they're ok. You should check it out. On 5/3/07, Nick Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my article in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.ht\ ml?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidtCOLLECTION=wsjie/6monthhttp://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.html?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidtCOLLECTION=wsjie/6month . It is a creditable source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a member of wsj.com. Also what about the article that Josh Leo, Ryann, Sunny, Jay, I from the University of Illinois student newspaper http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30\ /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\ 078.shtmlhttp://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30/News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814078.shtml ? Is that creditable? So could I put those 2 sources on the vlog wiki? My guess is no, because of the WIKIPI Police.. but that is fine with me. This is just kind of funny to me...but interested subject. Nick --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to set a standard so how low should they set it? Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
sarcastic responseLOL! Yeah! That is hilarious! Who'd have thought?/sarcastic response Maybe you should go and delete the article? Or, at least prove that you are not being malicious towards the videoblog article and request citations on any of the articles Josh listed. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lol, who knew lemonade was so controversial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lemonade On 5/2/07, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh MY!! Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too, they are unverifiable!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade Someone save us!!! On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]pdelongchamp%40gmail.com wrote: The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com groups-yahoo-com%40mmeiser.com wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. I never nominated the
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just whacked? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it's just me Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh MY!! Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too, they are unverifiable!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade Someone save us!!! On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]groups-yahoo-com% 40mmeiser.com wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the timeline, an article that's more than a 500 word stub. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yes Heath. It is crazy. I dont get it at all why there is any sort of negotiations with this guy. Hooray for the madness. David http;//www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just whacked? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it's just me Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo joshleo@ wrote: Oh MY!! Wikipedia is being invaded by uncited articles! Quick Delete these too, they are unverifiable!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scone_%28bread%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choli http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemonade Someone save us!!! On 5/2/07, Patrick Delongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: The response to Mmeiser's ban request: *Looks like a content dispute to me. You'll probably find **dispute resolution* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR* more productive than requesting a ban, have you tried mediation? If you really believe there's abuse here, you're going to have to provide some diffs. Removing unsourced information is not a negative action, content must be **verifiable*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V * and **reliably sourced* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS*. ** Seraphimblade* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade* Talk to mehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seraphimblade08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC) * On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-com@groups-yahoo-com% 40mmeiser.com wrote: On 5/2/07, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ jay.dedman%40gmail.com jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. Jay, I know you want to do the right thing and be the peace keeper. It's the exact same way I was when I came in on a dispute between Pat and Richard BF... as it turns out my neutrality in that debate was improper, I wish I would have sided with Richard BF. I just want you to understand that that's coming from not only a guy that has deleted at least every edit to the vb article once, but the guy who went through my contributions history and attempted to delete past contribs and three articles. Just be aware you're discussing merits of the material with a guy who thinks absolutely nothing has merit and has questionable merit himself. I did not make this about him. HE made it about him. He made it about him when he appointed himselve the authority on the merit of every contribution. Just be aware that it's not ok for someone to have the authority to approve or deny 100% of edits... and especially not ok when they reject 100% of edits. He would have you believe those edits I was adding back in were mine... they absolutely are not. I believe he'll suck you in as he sucked in Michael Verdi, Richard BF, myself and many others... which is to pretend that he really wants to collaborate when in fact he either doesn't know the meaning of the term or even worse is spending our energies out of spite. As proof that he's still lying I submit the book refences for the four books on vidoeblogging. They now sit in the article just as i had added them. He deleted them as irrelevant no less then a half dozen times before finally relenting. Quite the contrary to his I never once deleted any of your information that was properly cited. Even still his argument is irrelevant, as he fails to acknowlege how out of the standard editing policy his actions of deleting edits are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Perfection is not required Nor is a lack of citation a reasonable reason for deleting an edit and that is the real issue here. Noone else can collaborate, noone can source each others material when he automatically deletes every edit. His dominance and persistence with the delete button disrupts all other attempts by editors to work on wikipedia. But please... if you so desire continue to attempt to collaborate on him with this article. I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong with an article with more than 2-3 items in the
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Den 02.05.2007 kl. 16:38 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just whacked? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it's just me Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having knowledge about videoblogging. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Den 02.05.2007 kl. 16:38 skrev Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just whacked? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it's just me Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having knowledge about videoblogging. Mathematics is not a prerequisite for formulating, understanding or knowledge about physics? -- Enric -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/2/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just whacked? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it's just me Yes, Heath, I am in total agreement with you. It's so rediculous, its redonkulous. Yes, it deserves its own made-up word-- that's how far away its gone from anything rooted within reality. But then, I also don't care about anyones definition of videoblog either. Sure, its interesting to talk about over a beer, but I just spent the last 20min catching up on this thread and felt more robbed of my time than I did watching Heroes last week. Now its just people writing profanity as communication. But really, the question I need to know: Do we still consider Rocketboom a videoblog? And why isnt that question answered in the Wikipedia article? (ducks) Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://winkshow.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I agree that a person doesn't have to be a vlogger to have an interest int he topic, of course it may lend more insight into the issue. and c'mon, Pat did videoblog, and quite well at that. He helped a lot at Vloggercon and is no less of a vlogger than myself... There is, however something to be said for the doers vs the sayers in other areas... for example, someone who says coffee farmers need to get paid fair wages but then chooses to not drink fair trade coffee... sayers must make sure that their actions don't make them hypocritical...much like those who say community and support is important here but continue to degrade, insult, and belittle others on this list... p.s. my previous post about the other wikipedia entries was not an attack at Pat, but the practice of throwing the baby out with the bathwater... On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Long Live wikipedia! Death to elites! Down with any strategy that aims to diminish the opinions of others based on who they are and what they do, rather than the merit of what they are saying. Cheers (not) Steve Elbows -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com www.SlowLorisMedia.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm with you Schlomo. Crazy. But it does take one tiny grain of sand does make a pearl. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 07:57:54 To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry On 5/2/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]: mailto:heathparks%40msn.com com wrote: Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just whacked? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it's just me Yes, Heath, I am in total agreement with you. It's so rediculous, its redonkulous. Yes, it deserves its own made-up word-- that's how far away its gone from anything rooted within reality. But then, I also don't care about anyones definition of videoblog either. Sure, its interesting to talk about over a beer, but I just spent the last 20min catching up on this thread and felt more robbed of my time than I did watching Heroes last week. Now its just people writing profanity as communication. But really, the question I need to know: Do we still consider Rocketboom a videoblog? And why isnt that question answered in the Wikipedia article? (ducks) Schlomo http://schlomolog.: http://schlomolog.blogspot.com blogspot.com http://hatfactory.: http://hatfactory.net net http://winkshow.: http://winkshow.com com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Id agree with that. There are clearly circumstances where doing is important. And for example, as a non-vlogger, if I spent my time ridiculing the efforts of everyone who 'does', telling people that there stuff isnt a vlog, saying its all rubbish or hatever, then I would be on very thin ice (but then so would a vlogger saying the same stuff I guess, but it may be a little easier to take from a fellow vlogger) It would also be far too easy for me, with a well paid day job, to sit around moaning about vloggers selling out, which wouldnt be fair because I have the luxury of not needing to associate earning with vlogging. Likewise its easy for me to criticise this wikipedia situation because Im not one of the people who've spent so much time and energy making edits, only to find them removed by Pat. Claerly frustration has been building for a long time and its all come out in a concentrated blast of emotion and the desire to end the situation. So Im not siding with Pat, I just assume that some of his edits have merit, and I always get a sickly feeling when the mob takes effect here. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that a person doesn't have to be a vlogger to have an interest int he topic, of course it may lend more insight into the issue. and c'mon, Pat did videoblog, and quite well at that. He helped a lot at Vloggercon and is no less of a vlogger than myself... There is, however something to be said for the doers vs the sayers in other areas... for example, someone who says coffee farmers need to get paid fair wages but then chooses to not drink fair trade coffee... sayers must make sure that their actions don't make them hypocritical...much like those who say community and support is important here but continue to degrade, insult, and belittle others on this list... p.s. my previous post about the other wikipedia entries was not an attack at Pat, but the practice of throwing the baby out with the bathwater... On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Long Live wikipedia! Death to elites! Down with any strategy that aims to diminish the opinions of others based on who they are and what they do, rather than the merit of what they are saying. Cheers (not) Steve Elbows -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com www.SlowLorisMedia.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of Crowdfunding though I had moved the article here for anyone interested in editing it: http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com/ and this is a cool project that has recognized Crowdfunding and is looking for people interested in this topic to research, write and edit material. It is a joint project between Wired.com and NewAssignment.net. Congrats, Sull! -- Enric http://zero.newassignment.net/assignmentzero/crowdfunding Who needs wikipedia! ;) Sull On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] sulleleven%40gmail.com wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I didn't think I was degrading anyone, this conversation confuses me, plain and simple, my comments come from confusion Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Leo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree that a person doesn't have to be a vlogger to have an interest int he topic, of course it may lend more insight into the issue. and c'mon, Pat did videoblog, and quite well at that. He helped a lot at Vloggercon and is no less of a vlogger than myself... There is, however something to be said for the doers vs the sayers in other areas... for example, someone who says coffee farmers need to get paid fair wages but then chooses to not drink fair trade coffee... sayers must make sure that their actions don't make them hypocritical...much like those who say community and support is important here but continue to degrade, insult, and belittle others on this list... p.s. my previous post about the other wikipedia entries was not an attack at Pat, but the practice of throwing the baby out with the bathwater... On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Long Live wikipedia! Death to elites! Down with any strategy that aims to diminish the opinions of others based on who they are and what they do, rather than the merit of what they are saying. Cheers (not) Steve Elbows -- Josh Leo www.JoshLeo.com www.WanderingWestMichigan.com www.SlowLorisMedia.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Enric wrote: --- In videoblogging@ yahoogroups. com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] . wrote: Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having knowledge about videoblogging. Mathematics is not a prerequisite for formulating, understanding or knowledge about physics? -- Enric this indeed appears to be the case or at least not with our traditional Mathematics see A New Kind of Science by Steven Wolfram http://www.wolframscience.com/ The problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics and Physics -- Markus Sandy http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Enric wrote: --- In videoblogging@ yahoogroups. com mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ . wrote: Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having knowledge about videoblogging. Mathematics is not a prerequisite for formulating, understanding or knowledge about physics? -- Enric this indeed appears to be the case or at least not with our traditional Mathematics see A New Kind of Science by Steven Wolfram http://www.wolframscience.com/ The problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics and Physics I started to read A New Kind of Science, math is involved -- iterative math. -- Enric -- Markus Sandy http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or ignorant of these little-understood forces. Some attached crude symbols of a youtubers defecating on the cross of St. RSS, to their front doors, in the hope that the spectre's would leave them alone, and pass them by in the night. Oter wnt out to fight, but found their swords blunted by the rigours of logical analysis and intellectual debate. We need a hero cried the masses, one who can communicate with the great unwashed without them needing to brush up on their latin. And out of the darkness came wikipedians, but they could not save us, for they were shackled in the wonky prison of encyclopedic reference hell. The only reliable sources are the ones I put on my dinner cried the leper in the corner. Beware ye intellectuals, for the time of Gerald the Gadfly is upon theee Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics and Physics -- Markus Sandy http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Sull, you may want to update the link in the header of your crowdfunding.com blog so it points to the new pbwiki and not the deleted wikipedia entry. -Mike On 5/2/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking of Crowdfunding though I had moved the article here for anyone interested in editing it: http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com/ and this is a cool project that has recognized Crowdfunding and is looking for people interested in this topic to research, write and edit material. It is a joint project between Wired.com and NewAssignment.net. Congrats, Sull! -- Enric http://zero.newassignment.net/assignmentzero/crowdfunding Who needs wikipedia! ;) Sull On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] sulleleven%40gmail.com wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Steve, Enric, Markus... thanks for making me laugh. :) You too Schlomo! laughter is the best medicine. :) On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or ignorant of these little-understood forces. Some attached crude symbols of a youtubers defecating on the cross of St. RSS, to their front doors, in the hope that the spectre's would leave them alone, and pass them by in the night. Oter wnt out to fight, but found their swords blunted by the rigours of logical analysis and intellectual debate. We need a hero cried the masses, one who can communicate with the great unwashed without them needing to brush up on their latin. And out of the darkness came wikipedians, but they could not save us, for they were shackled in the wonky prison of encyclopedic reference hell. The only reliable sources are the ones I put on my dinner cried the leper in the corner. Beware ye intellectuals, for the time of Gerald the Gadfly is upon theee Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics and Physics -- Markus Sandy http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Cute! Cheers Monsieur Elbows, Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or ignorant of these little-understood forces. Some attached crude symbols of a youtubers defecating on the cross of St. RSS, to their front doors, in the hope that the spectre's would leave them alone, and pass them by in the night. Oter wnt out to fight, but found their swords blunted by the rigours of logical analysis and intellectual debate. We need a hero cried the masses, one who can communicate with the great unwashed without them needing to brush up on their latin. And out of the darkness came wikipedians, but they could not save us, for they were shackled in the wonky prison of encyclopedic reference hell. The only reliable sources are the ones I put on my dinner cried the leper in the corner. Beware ye intellectuals, for the time of Gerald the Gadfly is upon theee Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy markus.sandy@ wrote: The problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics and Physics -- Markus Sandy http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
My view is that it's the responsibility of a group to define itself and let that be clearly known to others. Now this doesn't mean that the definition is set in stone and stays static. It changes as the nature of the group and it's work changes and evolves. But to have random definitions, multiple, competing definitions and such is not democracy, but just makes it hard for others to understand and appreciate what the group is up to. It allows people like Dave Winer, http://tinyurl.com/37n9ld and Liz Games http://tinyurl.com/2bs35r to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (A half hour later...) Now I see the importance, I think. For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are at least important enough to document in some kind of historical record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful vandalism, at the least, but maybe also at the most. So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the definitive - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now - entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain your own history, is it? This is not to excuse the rampant illogical editing of the vlog wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already have happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe place! Respectfully, WtW --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog wallythewarlord@ wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime tonight)... Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging: http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/ http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74 I didn't exactly agree - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/ Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) - http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433 Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 - http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video - http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before all the editing that he talks about happened - http://tinyurl.com/27kyht January 2006 the VlogTheory list started - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after Vloggercon 2006 I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and Richard wrote a bit also. http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/ Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173 and later writes a definition of videoblogging - http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771 (Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well) It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was left of the already sparse article. So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before. - Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging (including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE: http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over. Jan On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite robust. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote: - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the debate. It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not, and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think one side has to *win*. Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http:// www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre. In a small community, one person can hold disproportionate power just by doing more than anyone else is prepared to. It's a difficult balance - you want people to lead, and get involved - but you don't want them to do too much or their opinion dominates to the detriment of other valid (but more quietly voiced) opinions. The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically researched. The ideal scenario when one person is wielding disproportionate power is that the whole community makes their opinions heard - and when there are differences of opinion as to a definition, as there are here, a middle path is followed - a compromise is reached. The people who want it all their own way will say that that's what they're doing - that Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and original research, and so they delete everything that's not sourced. One group of purists wanted to delete the video blog entry completely at one point, and it almost happened, which would have been absurd IMO. Richard BF blamed this proposed deletion on the messy discussions in the entry to try and bolster his own point, which was not true - the deletion was part of a wider semantic cleansing program by people who wanted to strip down definitions relating to blogging. I don't think it's particularly helpful to get back into the polarised discussions of whether it's a genre, a sub-genre, whether it exists at all. Let's have an entry that acknowledges the disagreements in a simple paragraph or two, and moves on to embrace all sides of the definition. That will be a far more informative entry for people wanting an authoritative reference. But we won't get there if we keep getting every addition deleted. Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 1 May 2007, at 08:44, Michael Verdi wrote: A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime tonight)... Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging: http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/ http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74 I didn't exactly agree - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/ Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) - http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433 Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 - http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video - http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before all the editing that he talks about happened - http://tinyurl.com/27kyht January 2006 the VlogTheory list started - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after Vloggercon 2006 I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and Richard wrote a bit also. http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/ http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/ Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173 and later writes a definition of videoblogging - http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771 (Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well) It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was left of the already sparse article. So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before. - Verdi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Sure, random definitions and multiple competing definitions that don't acknowledge each other are not desirable - but there is considerable debate about the definition and whatever any of us feel it *should* be, it's constantly evolving. I doubt Winer looked for a definition before he posted - he surely would have found no support on Wikipedia for his view. But that's why I think that the debate needs to - in a concise and non-confrontational way - be acknowledged. So that you can say to someone like Winer (or Games, who just followed Winer's lead), Look - this has been discussed for a long time, and pretty much no one in all those discussions came up with a definition that even vaguely matches your Vlog it to NBC definition. On 1 May 2007, at 08:24, Enric wrote: My view is that it's the responsibility of a group to define itself and let that be clearly known to others. Now this doesn't mean that the definition is set in stone and stays static. It changes as the nature of the group and it's work changes and evolves. But to have random definitions, multiple, competing definitions and such is not democracy, but just makes it hard for others to understand and appreciate what the group is up to. It allows people like Dave Winer, http://tinyurl.com/37n9ld and Liz Games http://tinyurl.com/2bs35r to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (A half hour later...) Now I see the importance, I think. For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are at least important enough to document in some kind of historical record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful vandalism, at the least, but maybe also at the most. So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the definitive - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now - entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain your own history, is it? This is not to excuse the rampant illogical editing of the vlog wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already have happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe place! Respectfully, WtW --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog wallythewarlord@ wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Thanks, Gena, Great post. I'm glad Patrick has not deleted this time, just used Wikipedia's proper markup for requesting changes according to his interpretation of the rules. As for the list of news sources, which (perhaps ironically) Patrick has marked for removal, I guess we could replace it with a whole big chunk of text which tells the story of how videoblogging has been reported in the MSM with a LOT of footnotes, but I think it's more elegant and useful to have a comprehensive list for those seeking further information. It tells a story in itself, and it's hardly a link farm, which is what Wikipedia is trying to prevent by this rule. I think this use of the list, at this point in time, inhabits an acceptable grey area. But that's my opinion. I'm going to do some work now! Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 1 May 2007, at 05:38, Gena wrote: Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video Blog section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion on a topic. Citation from an authorized and verifiable source is important. That verification can come from a number of sources. This can include traditional media. However even librarians (and those that hope to work among them) understand the rapidly increasing flow of information. We absolutely evaluate but don't restrict where good information can come from. For an quick example: Twitter. M$M (outside of the computer publications) hasn't a clue about what Twitter is or its functionality. If I had to write up a citation for Twitter there would be no point in searching traditional media, although I would do that as a matter of course. On the date of this post I'm not going to find a Twitter book or manual. What are the words, terms and concepts I need to understand? What is the vocabulary? Can I find multiple source to verify that vocabulary? I would also go to the source, i.e. the Twitter web site. I would look for competitors or vendors with a similar service. I would seek out and observe those people who would have a relationship with the service or who would have experience. This could be professional or highly advanced nerd or geek. Next, I would look at affinity groups (there must be a Twitter group someplace) and observe the posts for those persons who seem to know what they are talking about. They could led me to a verifiable or trusted source. My point is that there is a process to verifying information. It is not an exclusive it can only come from one direction process. Information has a flow, a relationship to the people that use it. It is organic not static. Course if you do it right there can be a kind of rapture in crafting just the right citation. Respectfully, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
OF COURSE! How did i forget the amazing encyclopedic Fauxpress Vlogpresskit?? It was late. My brain was spongy from hand, foot and mouth disease. Perhaps this is also the answer to the debate over the list of media links. If all those articles listed on Wikipedia are in the Press Kit - and I'm sure they are - could we have instead have a small section with a paragraph which describes the development of the media interest in vlogging, and then link to the vlogpresskit for further reading? Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 1 May 2007, at 11:15, Jan McLaughlin wrote: I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging (including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE: http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over. Jan On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite robust. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote: - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically researched. Videoblogs have been researched, not by many, but they there. At the very least there is a lot of blog research that can be applied without too many issues. Back in 2005 I did a short, short list which includes a couple of vlog papers URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/2005-1530/ In our own community alone we have Adrian Miles (and the rest of the RMIT crew, you know who you are), Trine Berry, Richard Hall, Kristoffer Gansing plus the large group of grad students (too many to count, but they're very smart. I know because I'm one). I approve all the members on the vlogtheory group so I know for a fact there are many in the academics who either work with vlogs or are interested in working with vlogs in the future. I think the issue is that those who are involved in research are not interested in the wikipedia article and who can blame them when everything gets deleted en masse? My own reason for not getting involved is that the Neutral Point of View policy more often than not gets interrpreted as No Point of View and I don't have time for that crap (See URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ ). -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yeah, sorry. I didn't actually mean not researched at all. Delete me! :) R On 1 May 2007, at 12:12, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically researched. Videoblogs have been researched, not by many, but they there. At the very least there is a lot of blog research that can be applied without too many issues. Back in 2005 I did a short, short list which includes a couple of vlog papers URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/2005-1530/ In our own community alone we have Adrian Miles (and the rest of the RMIT crew, you know who you are), Trine Berry, Richard Hall, Kristoffer Gansing plus the large group of grad students (too many to count, but they're very smart. I know because I'm one). I approve all the members on the vlogtheory group so I know for a fact there are many in the academics who either work with vlogs or are interested in working with vlogs in the future. I think the issue is that those who are involved in research are not interested in the wikipedia article and who can blame them when everything gets deleted en masse? My own reason for not getting involved is that the Neutral Point of View policy more often than not gets interrpreted as No Point of View and I don't have time for that crap (See URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ ). -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Ah yes, the classic case of circular definitions. That is repeating the defined term within the definition itself. This is the kind of writing that my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big red pencil. Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia. You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out information is instead worthless, look at the page, unverified, disputed, etc and etc, oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is gone, no...wait, it's backoh, nope its gone...oh, back again how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back and forth squalibling.it's sad.just sad. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gosse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah yes, the classic case of circular definitions. That is repeating the defined term within the definition itself. This is the kind of writing that my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big red pencil. Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I went over to Harvard last night for David Weinberger's talk about his new book, Everything Is Miscellaneous. One part of his talk was about Wikipedia and how it drives experts away because of the need for citations for everything. I hope I got that right... I've got his book and will read it to see if I can better summarize what he was saying. He had really funny pictures that made it very clear I was extremely frustrated trying to add information on Wikipedia and fought a long and hard fight to get the top definition the way I thought it should be. On May 1, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Heath wrote: The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia. You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out information is instead worthless, look at the page, unverified, disputed, etc and etc, oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is gone, no...wait, it's backoh, nope its gone...oh, back again how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back and forth squalibling.it's sad.just sad. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gosse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah yes, the classic case of circular definitions. That is repeating the defined term within the definition itself. This is the kind of writing that my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big red pencil. Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/1/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http:// www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre. Patrick most certainly didn't agree with Richard. Please re-read that - it's a pretty good discussion especially in light of a world where many of the people on YouTube call themselves vloggers and many many many sites on the web now include video. - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/1/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the debate. It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not, and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think one side has to *win*. Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a videoblog is video on blog is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to be encompassed. - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yeah, reading back I don't know why I wrote half of what I wrote this morning, other than that I'd had no sleep. I should just stop typing and go away for a while, clear my head. I wouldn't have intended to give the impression that I was supporting one position or the other. I personally don't feel particularly passionate about the definition, or as capable of arguing one way or the other as a lot of other people. I'm all for as open a definition as possible, and a section on the wikipedia page which acknowledges that there is a debate, if other people think that's acceptable. Sorry I was hasty in writing, I'm going to unplug for a while. Rupert On 1 May 2007, at 16:24, Michael Verdi wrote: On 5/1/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the debate. It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not, and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think one side has to *win*. Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a videoblog is video on blog is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to be encompassed. - Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
It's not my focus right now to argue and support the thesis that definitions are necessary to be effective. The one piece of information I can readily provide is on Dave Winer and the wikipedia definition of Podcasting. When Adam Curry anonymously deleted information, Dave Winer came out in front criticizing it: http://www.scripting.com/2005/06/11.html#peopleWithErasers This was picked up by other blogs and online news sites: http://tinyurl.com/27tzc8 http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-5980758-7.html http://tinyurl.com/2tb46o -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, random definitions and multiple competing definitions that don't acknowledge each other are not desirable - but there is considerable debate about the definition and whatever any of us feel it *should* be, it's constantly evolving. I doubt Winer looked for a definition before he posted - he surely would have found no support on Wikipedia for his view. But that's why I think that the debate needs to - in a concise and non-confrontational way - be acknowledged. So that you can say to someone like Winer (or Games, who just followed Winer's lead), Look - this has been discussed for a long time, and pretty much no one in all those discussions came up with a definition that even vaguely matches your Vlog it to NBC definition. On 1 May 2007, at 08:24, Enric wrote: My view is that it's the responsibility of a group to define itself and let that be clearly known to others. Now this doesn't mean that the definition is set in stone and stays static. It changes as the nature of the group and it's work changes and evolves. But to have random definitions, multiple, competing definitions and such is not democracy, but just makes it hard for others to understand and appreciate what the group is up to. It allows people like Dave Winer, http://tinyurl.com/37n9ld and Liz Games http://tinyurl.com/2bs35r to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog wallythewarlord@ wrote: (A half hour later...) Now I see the importance, I think. For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are at least important enough to document in some kind of historical record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful vandalism, at the least, but maybe also at the most. So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the definitive - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now - entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain your own history, is it? This is not to excuse the rampant illogical editing of the vlog wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already have happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe place! Respectfully, WtW --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog wallythewarlord@ wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with a way to link to them. On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: Going with the definition that a videoblog is video on blog is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that show option). It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is valid). If the definition is video on a blog - I think blog is generally recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube isn't one. Does that make sense? -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with a way to link to them. On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: Going with the definition that a videoblog is video on blog is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
The current definition is erroneous, A Video blog, sometimes shortened to vlog,[1][2][3] is a blog that comprises video footage Video footage is unedited video straight out of a camera shoot. A videoblog is video that is usually edited and rarely unedited video footage. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with a way to link to them. On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: Going with the definition that a videoblog is video on blog is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I think the problem is that net video is a larger container than a blog. A flash video container can contain all the capabilities of a blog and more indicated by the blip.tv Show Player and others. What Steve Garfield states makes sense as capabilities required by net video, but not the specific implementation in blog cms systems like Wordpress, TypePad, Blogger, etc. In other words, a videoblog is in reverse chronological order and often combine embedded video or a video link with supporting text, images, and other metadata. This should not be restricted to traditional blogging applications and include other implementations of the qualities in YouTube and other systems. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that show option). It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is valid). If the definition is video on a blog - I think blog is generally recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube isn't one. Does that make sense? -- David King davidleeking.com - blog http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with a way to link to them. On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: Going with the definition that a videoblog is video on blog is also a strongly held, personal point of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively eliminates everything published only on YouTube -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Has wikipedia administration been petitioned to stop Pdelongchamp from vandelizing? If so, what was the result? -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with. That is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how new media is working. I don't understnad this conversation at all, I really don't. There are people on this list who basicly CREATED videoblogging, and you are telling them how it should be defined? Oh I guess it's Wikipedia who is telling them, right? It's an evolving process right now, vlogging is being defined and re- defined as we speak, the article needs to grow with it...but that is just my opinion... Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video blog should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia has to set a standard so how low should they set it? Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. Blogs can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a another source to give more examples. --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of usin order to add to the Vlog entry. So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the best wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing points of view? Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition because videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we can use in the encyclopedia article. I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because Wikipedia is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Go for it. http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/videoblog - Verdi On 5/1/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The field of net video is so dynamic and changing so quickly, that it may make more sense to have definition and history on a trusted third party wiki. And have the wikipedia entry removed or not considered relavant. The steps used to define a microformat may be put to use for this. One of the important steps is finding common usage on the internet to create a standard: http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Propose_a_Microformat paraphrasing the page: ...A pattern has emerged from successful microformat development efforts of several specific kinds of wiki pages being created, in a particular order (though not always) 1. *-examples. Find examples on today's web of the the type of content you think needs a microformat. Document them with URLs. Document the implicit schemas that the content examples imply. This is the action that helps follow principle 3, design for humans first, machines second ... adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns. Start by cloning the examples page and filling it out. So real examples of the different videoblog types are listed on a wiki and common attributes are abstracted from them toward the definition. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/eventthen its probably not worth doing a wikipedia entry about. am i reading this correctly? seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the backstory. Jay This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK -Verdi -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/1/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi Person on Wikipedia who gets off on killing well-written articles of others. Subscribes to a ridiculously strict, yet abstract standard for what is and isn't encyclopedic. Probably molests children in spare time. Thanks enric, that made my day. It's hilarious. It shows how common this issue is, it's not even an original issue... I guess I should have done something sooner. I'm pursuing the advisement of wikipedia admins. It takes time. I suspect there's a process for suggesting a user be banned from editing an article I have no doubt we'll have any trouble with the process once initiated. If anyone else knows anyone such as Jimmy Wales who has a bit of time and advice and can refer us to the right person or process for having a delete troll banned from editing an article please simply proceed. On a side note, A friend of mine suggested I add Pat's history to articles on retributive editing and delete trolling as they're absolutely classic cases. Maybe if we document the commonality of these actions people will become more aware that their going on and it'll be easier to figure out how to deal with them. -Mike --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sull, It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability. Yes, I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors voted and agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the article consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of Wikipedia's core content policies) See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been deleted on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of. Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog article's content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to discuss the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my encyclopedic reasoning. What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the help of a Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising. a) The administrator did not reinstate the content. b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of verifiability and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate page and have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it into the article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses citations when making contributions) I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i had been trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made personal attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog article. To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of content to the article. (which i have never deleted) It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. Patrick On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article 'Crowdfunding'. and yes, meiser has been battling for months. fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games. On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]jannie.jan%40gmail.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On 5/1/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with. That is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how new media is working. I don't understnad this conversation at all, I really don't. There are people on this list who basicly CREATED videoblogging, and you are telling them how it should be defined? Oh I guess it's Wikipedia who is telling them, right? It's an evolving process right now, vlogging is being defined and re- defined as we speak, the article needs to grow with it...but that is just my opinion... Heath... I hear your pain, I do believe what Pat says is an impossibility, contradictory and an impossible standard. This is typical of delete trolls... what I'm sure we'll see if this conversation continues is that wikipedia's rules on sources and original research DO account for evolving topics. In fact I've long been enspired by the very example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions it's not just that page... which illustrates both that things can be factual and noteworthy without being citing newspaper article... it's also that most of the startrek articles wouldn't even exist by Pat's standards. Needless to say pat's interpretation is a deviation from the the actuality and reality that is wikipedia's standards. Not to get off point, the point being what actually are the wikipedia guidelines on citation, but the biggest problem I have is that Pat flaunts one of the pillars of wikipedia completely ignoring it and refusing in our conversations to even acknowlege it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy As cited on the vlogging talk page wich Pat so conveniently deleted only a few days later. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_blogoldid=127297968 ---being quote- It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged. However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. [...] With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: * duplication or redundancy * irrelevancy * patent nonsense * copyright violations * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) Alternatives include: * rephrasing * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced * requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag end quote- So... there's that policy... which would strongly seem to suggest that whether perfect or imperfect the automatic deletion of all contributions by a user for any reason except for out right spam isn't exactly in keeping with wikipedia policy. But let us get back to the discussion of Original Research and sources. -Mike Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust the
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
In fact I've long been enspired by the very example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions I was trying to find an example like this today. its a wikipedia article about an internet project not covered by mainstream news. Its great, neutral information that is valuable to anyone interested in Star Trek fan-created media. As far as I can see, all links/citations go back to other wikipedia articles...or blog posts. So what is the difference in what we are trying to do? is this article not valid because it doesnt have traditional sources...or are we being too strict? I can see the need to make sure the Vlog article remains neutral...but I think we have plenty of sources and reliability. We have several years of practice and examples. I worked with Pat at Vloggercon and really liked him. either there is some over-editing going on...or we just dont understand how wikipedia works. id love to hear Pat's comments on these recent posts. Ultimately what are we trying to do here? we're trying to make sure the spirit of Videoblogging can grow by documenting key concepts, examples, and history that the community has created over the past 3 years. And that's an eternity in internet time. As verdi and enric said, we could just make our own page...and come back to wikipedia another time. http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/videoblog Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
If enough people filed a complaint about this guy to the powers that be at Wikipedia, would not something be done about him? How could Wikipedia deny putting this little putz in his place when faced with hundreds of emails complaining about him? Would a letter writing campaign help matters? Who would we write to? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/1/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with. That is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how new media is working. I don't understnad this conversation at all, I really don't. There are people on this list who basicly CREATED videoblogging, and you are telling them how it should be defined? Oh I guess it's Wikipedia who is telling them, right? It's an evolving process right now, vlogging is being defined and re- defined as we speak, the article needs to grow with it...but that is just my opinion... Heath... I hear your pain, I do believe what Pat says is an impossibility, contradictory and an impossible standard. This is typical of delete trolls... what I'm sure we'll see if this conversation continues is that wikipedia's rules on sources and original research DO account for evolving topics. In fact I've long been enspired by the very example of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions it's not just that page... which illustrates both that things can be factual and noteworthy without being citing newspaper article... it's also that most of the startrek articles wouldn't even exist by Pat's standards. Needless to say pat's interpretation is a deviation from the the actuality and reality that is wikipedia's standards. Not to get off point, the point being what actually are the wikipedia guidelines on citation, but the biggest problem I have is that Pat flaunts one of the pillars of wikipedia completely ignoring it and refusing in our conversations to even acknowlege it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy As cited on the vlogging talk page wich Pat so conveniently deleted only a few days later. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_blogoldid=127297968 ---being quote- It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged. However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. During this process, the article might look like a first draftor worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. [...] With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: * duplication or redundancy * irrelevancy * patent nonsense * copyright violations * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) Alternatives include: * rephrasing * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced * requesting a citation by adding the
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Rupert, I strongly suggest staying away from anything that requires to sentences of explanation. Let's just ignore the debate about wether youtube is or is not videoblogging and instead for example add sourced references to the timeline as to important events in the history of youtube. In the meantime we can discuss wether youtube is or is not a videoblogging platform either here or on the talk page. Wether it is or isn't should not hold any bearing as to wether it's growth is relevant to the growth of videoblogging... because it's growth parrellels videoblogging... that's all that need really be said as to it's relevence. Any articles that reference youtube and vlogging in the same article would also be extremely interesting... such as an article calling LisaNova or Brookers a vlogger. -Mike On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, you and Jen are right about the Vtech stuff. thanks for taking it out. It arose from me wanting to put in more about YouTube and the increasingly blurred perception of what vlogging is, but not knowing where to start. The first line of the entry, I felt, excluded the idea and reality of vlogging as I imagine it's perceived by a lot of people and was limited to the point of being misleading to a newcomer. Anyway, to be discussed there, not here. Agreed that YouTube needs a lot more representation there. Hopefully some happy Vlogging YouTuber will pitch in. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 16:26, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage wrote: I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again. There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a friend of mine. The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have parted, that kind of love was the killin' kind. Sorry, I wrote there was a time and Aerosmith just started spewing out all over the place. Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past. I don't think the collective we should be policing it to ensure it's homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/ subtract as we see fit, whenever we desire. For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff. Not really vlogging-related. Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter) sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of videoblogging by any means. ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with the idea of an awards show for videoblogging. They're pretentious and pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4 pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are in passing. Pretty insular. On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and we're the Crazy 88? Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see are right, whoever makes them. I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people - particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool. If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to find somewhere else to play. I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes some weird escalated battle or he gives in? -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. Jan On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes some weird escalated battle or he gives in? -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and we're the Crazy 88? Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see are right, whoever makes them. I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people - particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool. If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to find somewhere else to play. I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes some weird escalated battle or he gives in? -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
On Apr 30, 2007, at 9:59 am, Rupert wrote: I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert I think it's weird to read this addition, including one comment by one person, which a whole community immediately took issue with, to the Wikipedia entry as if its a trend and a thing to watch. Putting this in Wikipedia will only perpetuate an idea that I don't think 99% of us agree with or want to see perpetuated! Please take this out. Jen Jen Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jensimmons.com http://milkweedmediadesign.com 267-235-6967 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
psss I added some YouTube info in the history timeline. YouTube is the biggest thing to happen to videoblogging ever ever ever ever. There should be a whole section on it, but a YouTuber should write it, not me. On 4/30/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again. There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a friend of mine. The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have parted, that kind of love was the killin' kind. Sorry, I wrote there was a time and Aerosmith just started spewing out all over the place. Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past. I don't think the collective we should be policing it to ensure it's homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/subtract as we see fit, whenever we desire. For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff. Not really vlogging-related. Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter) sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of videoblogging by any means. ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with the idea of an awards show for videoblogging. They're pretentious and pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4 pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are in passing. Pretty insular. On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and we're the Crazy 88? Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see are right, whoever makes them. I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people - particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool. If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to find somewhere else to play. I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes some weird escalated battle or he gives in? -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again. There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a friend of mine. The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have parted, that kind of love was the killin' kind. Sorry, I wrote there was a time and Aerosmith just started spewing out all over the place. Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past. I don't think the collective we should be policing it to ensure it's homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/subtract as we see fit, whenever we desire. For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff. Not really vlogging-related. Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter) sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of videoblogging by any means. ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with the idea of an awards show for videoblogging. They're pretentious and pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4 pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are in passing. Pretty insular. On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and we're the Crazy 88? Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see are right, whoever makes them. I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people - particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool. If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to find somewhere else to play. I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes some weird escalated battle or he gives in? -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yeah, you and Jen are right about the Vtech stuff. thanks for taking it out. It arose from me wanting to put in more about YouTube and the increasingly blurred perception of what vlogging is, but not knowing where to start. The first line of the entry, I felt, excluded the idea and reality of vlogging as I imagine it's perceived by a lot of people and was limited to the point of being misleading to a newcomer. Anyway, to be discussed there, not here. Agreed that YouTube needs a lot more representation there. Hopefully some happy Vlogging YouTuber will pitch in. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 16:26, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage wrote: I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again. There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a friend of mine. The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have parted, that kind of love was the killin' kind. Sorry, I wrote there was a time and Aerosmith just started spewing out all over the place. Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past. I don't think the collective we should be policing it to ensure it's homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/ subtract as we see fit, whenever we desire. For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff. Not really vlogging-related. Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter) sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of videoblogging by any means. ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with the idea of an awards show for videoblogging. They're pretentious and pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4 pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are in passing. Pretty insular. On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and we're the Crazy 88? Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see are right, whoever makes them. I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people - particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool. If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to find somewhere else to play. I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes some weird escalated battle or he gives in? -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite robust. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote: - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Let me get this straight. One disgruntled ex-videoblogger is causing all this strife over the wiki posting for this? One person?? Wow. Just...wow. If the powers that be at Wikipedia arent willing to help in this, then what's the point in banging heads against a wall? It's the proverbial definition of insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite robust. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote: - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade meade.dave@ wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Yeah. It's the power of the internet that one person can cause so much trouble. I am hesitant about invoking censorship from above. The thing about this guy is that he's using the NPOV 'rules' of Wikipedia to do what he's doing, so there's a chance that they might even side with him, or make the whole thing worse by upping the aggro. I still think it's better to take the community route first. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 22:38, David Howell wrote: Let me get this straight. One disgruntled ex-videoblogger is causing all this strife over the wiki posting for this? One person?? Wow. Just...wow. If the powers that be at Wikipedia arent willing to help in this, then what's the point in banging heads against a wall? It's the proverbial definition of insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite robust. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote: - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade meade.dave@ wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. Thereâs one catch though, itâs an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) Thereâs already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute. Patrick D p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
The power of the internet does not give one person omnipotent power over all. Especially under the directives of the Wikipedia which is community based. Maybe just create a wiki for ourselves and then link to it within the sparsely populated Wikipedia wiki? No? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah. It's the power of the internet that one person can cause so much trouble. I am hesitant about invoking censorship from above. The thing about this guy is that he's using the NPOV 'rules' of Wikipedia to do what he's doing, so there's a chance that they might even side with him, or make the whole thing worse by upping the aggro. I still think it's better to take the community route first. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 22:38, David Howell wrote: Let me get this straight. One disgruntled ex-videoblogger is causing all this strife over the wiki posting for this? One person?? Wow. Just...wow. If the powers that be at Wikipedia arent willing to help in this, then what's the point in banging heads against a wall? It's the proverbial definition of insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite robust. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote: - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl cheryl.colan@ wrote: Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Meade meade.dave@ wrote: wow he's already undone it all ... how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the good fight) :-) - Dave Yahoo! Groups Links -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Den 30.04.2007 kl. 23:28 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around What is vlogging? So we have to find MSM sources for that? Which is total BS. Using tv, newspapers to track language use made sense back when those were the only records of daily use, and it still makes sense in many cases today. However, for niche groups it makes little sense to rely on mainstream sources for tracking language use - *especially* since the members of the niche group publish so many words (spoken and written). That's why Wikipedia-nazis who blindly follow policy without thinking are bad for the world. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Den 01.05.2007 kl. 00:08 skrev pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) You do realize that some blogs are written by people who are Certifiably Smart on a given topic (including but not limited to those with academic careers). Those blogs provide much better citations than a wire story written by the intern... as any good encyclopedia editor would know. -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
What credentials do you actually have in deciding what should and what should not be posted in the Vlog entry in the Wikipedia? Please cite for us those references you have. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. Thereâs one catch though, itâs an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) Thereâs already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute. Patrick D p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
limiting all reference to a new media medium to those coming from mainstream media is insane and shows a near complete ignorance of the topic trying to be described ... as such I suggest you stop editing the page. On 4/30/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. There’s one catch though, it’s an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) There’s already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute. Patrick D p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ * Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional * To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) * To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm just an Wikipedian. (a regular joe that likes wikipedia) You can read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which are decided by editors like you and me) in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, one of the things that I found most surprising and hard to accept was this quote at the top of one of Wikipedia's core content policies: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It seems odd but it's interesting to read about why a policy like that might be a good thing. I find that particular policy super interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and this one too! It defines a reliable source and talks about why certain sources are considered reliable and why limiting editors to those sources will make a better article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources It's also important in Wikipedia to always assume good faith in other editors which is what I've had to try very hard to do in these last couple of emails. (because no matter how upset your emails may seem, i know (or assume) that you want the best for the vlog wiki article and I keep that in mind when replying) But let's not waste any more energy here. If you really feel passionate about the article, go edit it! Be Bold! Use the Discussion page to discuss what you like, what you don't like. Great things are already happening. pd --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What credentials do you actually have in deciding what should and what should not be posted in the Vlog entry in the Wikipedia? Please cite for us those references you have. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, pdelongchamp pdelongchamp@ wrote: Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. Thereâs one catch though, itâs an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) Thereâs already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute. Patrick D p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Patrick, Thanks for replying here. The thing that I'm not happy with - and that Mike Meiser's not happy with - and Verdi, and Jan, and, and, and... is your destruction of content that has been crafted by many people with considerable care. You haven't just marked it as 'unverified', or even looked for the sources that I've found - you've deleted it again and again, and reconstructed the entry as your own. It *is* possible to mark something as unverified, and therefore potentially untrustworthy without deleting it. In fact, in a niche subject on which there has been very little main stream analysis, I would say that this is your responsibility, otherwise you are actually impeding the aggregation of knowledge on that subject. In a larger entry, where there is more attention, there's a more efficient information market at work. An entry like this is a very *inefficient* market, where even those actively involved in the community are unaware of what's going on, and so needs to be handled more sensitively to avoid undue influence from any one party. You say that 'Great things are already happening' as a result of this discussion. This is in spite of - not because of - your efforts. It's 1.30am. I am ill, and I have wasted my entire evening reinstating what I consider valuable from previous versions (only those from the last week, - never mind what must have been lost in the past) and finding Mainstream Media sources for much of the content that you've previously deleted. I dug up these sources solely in order to try and bolster our argument that you should not delete this useful information. I shouldn't have had to do this. It upsets me that I have. How much easier would it have been if you had just gone out to find those sources and put them in, rather than making me have to replace and rewrite the whole piece before putting them in for you. How much more valuable would the entry be if it had not lost the nuances of discussion gathered along the way - and had not lost the support of those who felt dispirited by your actions? The irony is that the MSM articles I've quoted as sources to appease you, although they were in reputable journals, were mostly entertainment/tech puff pieces. Whenever I read this kind of material in daily newspapers about subjects I know intimately (like videoblogging), I'm invariably struck by how they fail to fully grasp the subject. They're taking an amateur snapshot and giving it a spin - and even if well-intentioned, it does not get the level of rigour demanded from news journalists, or those who specialize in a field, which presumably is what the Wikipedia Rules uphold as the highest level of verifiability. If you'd ever been in a job where you'd had feature journalists calling up and asking you to do their job for them by telling them everything you know about a subject so that they can write it down, funk it up a little and give it to their editor, you'd probably have a little more perspective on what's a verifiable source. I would say that on an average day, I read more bullshit in the paper than I do online. I know you'll come back and cite the Wikipedia Rules. I don't care. As always, it's *how* you apply the rules that matters. Rules can be over-extended, corrupted and abused to serve particular personal interests, and must be applied judiciously. What you have been doing has been perceived as selfish and destructive, masquerading as a service to the community and as adherence to the rulebook - in short, the behaviour of a mean-spirited civil servant. Now I'm very tired, and I'm going to bed before I say something I'll regret. All I'll say is, That's how it's been seen here, and I hope that that's enough to make you step back for a moment to consider things. Please give the article a chance to breathe, and do not delete anything more until we have had a good long chance to review it among ourselves. If you have issues with it, leave HTML comments in the text and notes on the discussion board. We will attempt to meet your concerns - I will certainly give them due attention and reply. Then, when you've given it some time, perhaps you can find two authoritative Wikipedia editors to help you assess what needs to be corrected according to the rules. Thanks, Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 1 May 2007, at 01:14, pdelongchamp wrote: I'm just an Wikipedian. (a regular joe that likes wikipedia) You can read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which are decided by editors like you and me) in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, one of the things that I found most surprising and hard to accept was this quote at the top of one of Wikipedia's core content policies:
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petition wikipedia to have them stop or to have the page locked. An example of a locked or protected page is the one on Todd Goldman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Goldman -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi Well, doesn't look like he does have the patience any more, sadly. On Meiser's Talk page on Friday, he said he's now going to give up, exhausted by Patrick Delongchamp's repeated 'delete trolling.' So Meiser has spent a long time protecting the entry from this sad little man on a power trip. Not just Meiser's own work, but the hours and hours of work of all you others who have added to and discussed the Wikipedia entry. This is what community is for. It's all about consensus and support. How can we organize to support Meiser, and persuade this troll to leave it alone? Maybe we can turn the tables and exhaust Delongchamp instead, show him that more people believe in the fuller entry than in his destructive, narcissistic little stub. I'm game. What do you reckon? This is a problem on Wikipedia, individuals who use deletion to exert a kind of tyrannical power over entries. The rule that things must be from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be corrupted and abused to mean that everything that is not sourced must be stripped away. It's an incredible power, to delete everyone else's entries and just leave your own. It's a terrible abuse, I think, and achieves the opposite of what NPOV intended - one view instead of many. To justify it, Patrick Delongchamp needs to be backed by a community consensus, which he is not. I didn't know this was going on. I wish I had - it's the kind of thing that should be discussed here. The wikipedia entry always *used* to be discussed here, however painfully. Usually when someone was trying to exert too much individual influence. At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Rupert Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 30 Apr 2007, at 09:10, Rupert wrote: That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not. If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Also, here's some wikipedia pages on edit abuse and vandalism: http://tinyurl.com/2hejny http://tinyurl.com/23ob22 with links to other pages on the subject. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petition wikipedia to have them stop or to have the page locked. An example of a locked or protected page is the one on Todd Goldman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Goldman -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi Well, doesn't look like he does have the patience any more, sadly. On Meiser's Talk page on Friday, he said he's now going to give up, exhausted by Patrick Delongchamp's repeated 'delete trolling.' So Meiser has spent a long time protecting the entry from this sad little man on a power trip. Not just Meiser's own work, but the hours and hours of work of all you others who have added to and discussed the Wikipedia entry. This is what community is for. It's all about consensus and support. How can we organize to support Meiser, and persuade this troll to leave it alone? Maybe we can turn the tables and exhaust Delongchamp instead, show him that more people believe in the fuller entry than in his destructive, narcissistic little stub. I'm game. What do you reckon? This is a problem on Wikipedia, individuals who use deletion to exert a kind of tyrannical power over entries. The rule that things must be from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be corrupted and abused to mean that everything that is not sourced must be stripped away. It's an incredible power, to delete everyone else's entries and just leave your own. It's a terrible abuse, I think, and achieves the opposite of what NPOV intended - one view instead of many. To justify it, Patrick Delongchamp needs to be backed by a community consensus, which he is not. I didn't know this was going on. I wish I had - it's the kind of thing that should be discussed here. The wikipedia entry always *used* to be discussed here, however painfully. Usually when someone was trying to exert too much individual influence. At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Rupert Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 30 Apr 2007, at 09:10, Rupert wrote: That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not. If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
i def think this guy has abused his privilige On 4/30/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, here's some wikipedia pages on edit abuse and vandalism: http://tinyurl.com/2hejny http://tinyurl.com/23ob22 with links to other pages on the subject. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petition wikipedia to have them stop or to have the page locked. An example of a locked or protected page is the one on Todd Goldman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Goldman -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Rupert rupert@ wrote: I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi Well, doesn't look like he does have the patience any more, sadly. On Meiser's Talk page on Friday, he said he's now going to give up, exhausted by Patrick Delongchamp's repeated 'delete trolling.' So Meiser has spent a long time protecting the entry from this sad little man on a power trip. Not just Meiser's own work, but the hours and hours of work of all you others who have added to and discussed the Wikipedia entry. This is what community is for. It's all about consensus and support. How can we organize to support Meiser, and persuade this troll to leave it alone? Maybe we can turn the tables and exhaust Delongchamp instead, show him that more people believe in the fuller entry than in his destructive, narcissistic little stub. I'm game. What do you reckon? This is a problem on Wikipedia, individuals who use deletion to exert a kind of tyrannical power over entries. The rule that things must be from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be corrupted and abused to mean that everything that is not sourced must be stripped away. It's an incredible power, to delete everyone else's entries and just leave your own. It's a terrible abuse, I think, and achieves the opposite of what NPOV intended - one view instead of many. To justify it, Patrick Delongchamp needs to be backed by a community consensus, which he is not. I didn't know this was going on. I wish I had - it's the kind of thing that should be discussed here. The wikipedia entry always *used* to be discussed here, however painfully. Usually when someone was trying to exert too much individual influence. At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's not be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone. Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus! Rupert Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 30 Apr 2007, at 09:10, Rupert wrote: That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not. If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote: This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp - constantly fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's pathetic. I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin jannie.jan@ wrote: Has rather been decimated. Wow. Anybody? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog Jan -- The Faux Press - better than real http://fauxpress.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/fauxpress [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://spinxpress.com http://freevlog.org Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://geekentertainment.tv [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video Blog section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion on a topic. Citation from an authorized and verifiable source is important. That verification can come from a number of sources. This can include traditional media. However even librarians (and those that hope to work among them) understand the rapidly increasing flow of information. We absolutely evaluate but don't restrict where good information can come from. For an quick example: Twitter. M$M (outside of the computer publications) hasn't a clue about what Twitter is or its functionality. If I had to write up a citation for Twitter there would be no point in searching traditional media, although I would do that as a matter of course. On the date of this post I'm not going to find a Twitter book or manual. What are the words, terms and concepts I need to understand? What is the vocabulary? Can I find multiple source to verify that vocabulary? I would also go to the source, i.e. the Twitter web site. I would look for competitors or vendors with a similar service. I would seek out and observe those people who would have a relationship with the service or who would have experience. This could be professional or highly advanced nerd or geek. Next, I would look at affinity groups (there must be a Twitter group someplace) and observe the posts for those persons who seem to know what they are talking about. They could led me to a verifiable or trusted source. My point is that there is a process to verifying information. It is not an exclusive it can only come from one direction process. Information has a flow, a relationship to the people that use it. It is organic not static. Course if you do it right there can be a kind of rapture in crafting just the right citation. Respectfully, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
(A half hour later...) Now I see the importance, I think. For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are at least important enough to document in some kind of historical record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful vandalism, at the least, but maybe also at the most. So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the definitive - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now - entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain your own history, is it? This is not to excuse the rampant illogical editing of the vlog wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already have happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe place! Respectfully, WtW --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video Blog section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion on a topic. Citation from an authorized and verifiable source is important. That verification can come from a number of sources. This can include traditional media. However even librarians (and those that hope to work among them) understand the rapidly increasing flow of information. We absolutely evaluate but don't restrict where good information can come from. For an quick example: Twitter. M$M (outside of the computer publications) hasn't a clue about what Twitter is or its functionality. If I had to write up a citation for Twitter there would be no point in searching traditional media, although I would do that as a matter of course. On the date of this post I'm not going to find a Twitter book or manual. What are the words, terms and concepts I need to understand? What is the vocabulary? Can I find multiple source to verify that vocabulary? I would also go to the source, i.e. the Twitter web site. I would look for competitors or vendors with a similar service. I would seek out and observe those people who would have a relationship with the service or who would have experience. This could be professional or highly advanced nerd or geek. Next, I would look at affinity groups (there must be a Twitter group someplace) and observe the posts for those persons who seem to know what they are talking about. They could led me to a verifiable or trusted source. My point is that there is a process to verifying information. It is not an exclusive it can only come from one direction process. Information has a flow, a relationship to the people that use it. It is organic not static. Course if you do it right there can be a kind of rapture in crafting just the right citation. Respectfully, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com Yes, in my view, knowledge and standard information comes out of human interaction and incorporation into persistent human action. It develops naturally and an authority only is valid in how well they conceptualize the natural occurrence. Whether the authority be a judge, newspaper editorial stance, encyclopedic reference, etc. -- Enric
