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+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month> . It is a creditable source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a member of wsj.com.
Also what about the article that Josh Leo, Ryann, Sunny, Jay, & I from the University of Illinois student newspaper <http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30\ /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\ 078.shtml> ? Is that creditable? So could I put those 2 sources on the vlog wiki? My guess is no, because of the WIKIPI Police.. but that is fine with me. This is just kind of funny to me...but interested subject. Nick --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
