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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
--- 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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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,
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
: 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
: [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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
:
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
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
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
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
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
] 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
,
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
:
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
(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
--- 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
75 matches
Mail list logo
