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_blog&oldid=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" > > <pdelongchamp@> wrote: > > > > > > >--when you say "the need to cite content"....must 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 us....in 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 <jay.dedman@> 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 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. > > > > > > > > hey Patrick-- > > > > > > > > thanks for replying. > > > > here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing > > process. > > > > --when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > > > --also, from your user history > > > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdelongchamp), 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 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 us....in 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? > > > > > > > > jay > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Here I am.... > > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > > > > > > Check out the latest project: > > > > http://pixelodeonfest.com/ > > > > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
