Wikipedia for credibility and to compete with established encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica, requires citation from "authoritative" sources. This is usually established media sources like New York Times, Time Magazine, ABC News, etc. People working on new developments on the net like Videoblogging are by it's nature going to be ahead of "authoritative" media and will initially be misrepresented. The development of net media are moving so fast and compete with the prior media, resulting in a tendency to be misrepresented in the prior media. So sticking strictly with Wikipedia's policy of authoritative citation will by it's nature misrepresent videoblogging.
-- Enric -======- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Markus, > > I don't have a vlog anymore but I used to do cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com > > As you can see from the results from the ban attempt, I have in fact been > trying to stick up for the vlog article. It was changes i made to the > article nearly a year ago that saved it from getting deleted. ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=70288801&oldid=70288758) > Since then, I've asked people to source their contributions. (a wikipedia > core content policy) The vocal people in this group seem to be misdirecting > their frustration with Wikipedia policy towards me. > > The content Mmeiser had been trying to reinsert ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blog&diff=125328951&oldid=124431636) > into the article was the content that almost got the article deleted nearly > a year ago. > > As much as Mmeiser is upset that I initially supported the deletion (because > I agreed with the reasoning behind the nomination) I instead decided that > the information could actually be turned into something valuable and did > research and made changes. Changes that saved it from getting deleted. I > hate to say this but if I had left Mmeiser alone, the article would probably > have been deleted over and over again since then. > > Wikipedia has policies. Anyone can edit it but there's only a select kind > of information that can go into it. > > People claim i've been making disruptive edits and "dicking" with the > article for a year now. I challenge them to read the wikipedia definition > of disruptive edits. ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing) Has anyone > really looked at the evidence to determine if it is in fact Mmeiser who has > been putting up with me for a year or if it is instead the other way around? > (see my defense in the ban request) > > I would be happy to explain any specific edit I've made if a link of the > edit is provided. I can't really defend accusations that i've "deleted > everything for the last 2 years" which is terribly inaccurate. > > pd > > On 5/3/07, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > HI Patrick, > > > > When I saw your initial post, I thought "why is he posting in the wrong > > thread?" and then I looked more carefully and got your "joke". > > > > When you posted the "text version", I thought "is he now spamming?" > > But I assume you have a different default char set than me and hence > > the funny characters in the first version of that email. > > > > You've pissed off a number of group members and friends and so I can't > > help but wonder what kind of person you really are. > > > > Do you have a vlog? > > > > Not a requirement of course. I'm just wondering if I can see you or > > your work anywhere. > > > > Markus > > > > On May 3, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: > > > > > Hey Mike, > > > > > > I didn't mean for it to seam like you were threatening me. Sorry. > > > > > > It was just meant as a lighthearted reflection of the topics > > > currently being > > > discussed in the group. > > > > > > pd > > > > -- > > http://SpinXpress.com/Markus_Sandy > > http://Ourmedia.org/Markus_Sandy > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
