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 > > talk....What did I miss? > > > > > > WtW > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
