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
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,
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
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
: [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
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
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
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
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 -
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
40 matches
Mail list logo
