I haven't read the whole of this thread but I find it ironic that a
mechanism such as videoblogging, which due to it's low barrier to entry
means people can bypass msm, requires msm to define/reference it on
wikipedia so that it's definition becomes validated.
perhaps all the info on the page
On 5/2/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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
Hey Jay
Just wanted to make a quick reply.
Regarding the Star Trek article, there is a lot of discussion on the
article's talk page over notability and sources. (just to say it's still an
issue even if it doesn't appear to be at first) The fan made productions
seem to be notable as they have
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
However, we've been making progress on the article
since this group discussion has started
what you seem to be missing is that an effort by the community
(including those who LITTERALLY wrote the book(s) on the topic, and
the HUNDREDS who have been with this thing for the past three years)
has
Unsourced statements call for immediate deletion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_with_unsourced_statem
ents
I quit counting after 1000. I was still only up to the articles
beginning with the letter A.
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 -
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
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
--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
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?
just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this:
Something happens online.
Mary Joe blogs about it.
we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote
her.
Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable
source.
correct?
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
FUCK (you missed one ;)
On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
I'm sorry Verdi.
It's criminal, isn't it.
Fuck.
Ron Watson
Pawsitive Vybe
11659 Berrigan Ave
Cedar Springs, MI 49319
http://pawsitivevybe.com
Personal Contact:
616.802.8923
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the Web:
http://pawsitivevybe.com
http://k9disc.com
http://k9disc.blip.tv
On May 1, 2007, at
Reliable sources:
Judith Miller
Tom Friedman
Tim Russert
What a fucking joke.
This is the stupidest conversation ever.
I'd like to see the resumes of the wikipedia leadership.
I wonder if it has been co-opted by corporatists. Wouldn't suprise me
in the least.
Ron Watson
On the Web:
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
Jay, while I'm listening intently on this... I find it very ironic Pat
has not cited or quoted from wikipedia on what wikipedia considers
good sources and original research.
It occurs to me that he's adlibing his own personal idea of what
proper sources should and should not be.
I would have no
To get right down to the issue of sources wikipedia states.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a
well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a
relevant field. These may be acceptable so long
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 actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning
for my edits.
i.e. I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that
Don't use vandalism... specify delete trolling and cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
found it ... if we undo his undo should we mark it as Vandalism
(defined as change of content made in a deliberate attempt to
Simply revert his deletes by going into the history tab, clicking on
the date of the lastest version before he deleted, edit that version
and save. Before saving be sure to include his name and why you are
reverting.
I. E. Undid Pdelongchamp's deletion, citing wikipedias editing policy
on
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
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
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
Den 30.04.2007 kl. 10:51 skrev Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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!
Or like Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven. Old, bitter and
or we can ask wikipedia to lock the article.
this is ridiculous.
one lame guy?
On 4/30/07, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Den 30.04.2007 kl. 10:51 skrev Rupert [EMAIL
PROTECTED]rupert%40fatgirlinohio.org
:
At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot.
:) funny man
As long as we're not being like the townsfolk in Bad Day at Black Rock.
Irina, I know what you mean, but locking up the article would be a
loss, too. better to try and let it stay open and persuade this
Patrick Delongchamp idiot to stop wrecking it.
Rupert
On 30 Apr 2007, at
Can we not ask to have this particular troll blocked from dicking with the
article?
Alternatively, if we - as a group - monitor and replace the proper text with
enthusiasm, perhaps we can wear him down.
Jan
On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:) funny man
As long as we're not being
: Sunday, 29 April, 2007 9:25 PM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Has rather been decimated.
Wow.
Anybody?
http://en.wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog .org/wiki/Vlog
Jan
--
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress. http
found it ... if we undo his undo should we mark it as Vandalism
(defined as change of content made in a deliberate attempt to
compromise the integrity of Wikipedia) ... or what?
On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wow he's already undone it all ...
how does one undo his undo? (I'm
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
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 -
Good work. I say don't mark it vandalism. Don't give him the
satisfaction of getting into long discussions, either - perhaps he's
been loving the attention he's been getting from Meiser, and we need
to make it boring for him.
Rupert
On 30 Apr 2007, at 18:37, David Meade wrote:
found it
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]
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
37 matches
Mail list logo
