Kary - this is a well thought out and written summary....and it has no place in this flame war....
(I kid, I play, I joke) Very nice reply Kary Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As someone who's > - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months > - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging > - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list > this is how is seems to me. > > People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most > qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been > added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because > they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- > changing videoblogging landscape. > > Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. > Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: "I guarantee you > that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream > media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - > online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly > the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for > this kind of item" > > David Howell asks : "No original research? Why not?" And then "Why > use "new media" to define "new media" with a requirement that the > validation come from "old media." > > This is the problem. People are adding content that they know to be > true because they are the movers and shakers, yet the content doesn't > meet the policies of Wikipedia for citation and verifiability. And > people are really upset at pdelongchamp for enforcing the Wiki policies. > > There seem to be two issues: 1) not agreeing with the policies that > don't allow original research and 2) the manner in which pdelongchamp > enforces the policies. > > There's not much you can do about #1 except wait for more > "verifiable" sources to emerge or take the game somewhere else (which > I believe Verdi setup something on pbwiki). I agree that it doesn't > make much sense to only allow old media to define the faster paced > new media. > > Now #2 is stickier. I looked over the history page and edits that > pdelongchamp made stated the reason was not being in line with wiki > policy. It could very well be that he gets his kicks by causing > everyone frustration. I don't know, I don't know him but if I'm just > going by what I've seen on here, it doesn't seem that way. I > understand that many of you know each other and are friends in Real > Life and want to stick by each other. I've only met three other > videobloggers (but I hope to change that in the near future) so I can > give a fairly objective view on the exchanges here. pdelongchamp has > been called names and cursed at, yet his responses are well- measured, > civil and only speak of improving the article according to Wikipedia > policy. Either he's not quite what people are making him out to be > or he's two-faced and manipulative. > > People are unhappy with Wikipedia's policy and are aiming their > frustration at the person enforcing it. I think if pdelongchamp went > away and never came back, there would be someone else to take his > place as "gatekeeper." > > -- > Kary Rogers > http://karyhead.com > > > On May 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > I dont think its asinine, I think its a basic concept of an > > ecyclopedia. > > > > Now Im quite prepared to admit that this doesnt make encyclopedia's > > the best source for detailed info on rapidly emerging fields, and I > > would be quite happy if sites & people played with alternatives with > > different rules, something that isnt wikipedia. > > > > My great concern though is how much this 'ban pat' stuff is merged in > > with these issues. Even if there are a million vloggers here who think > > the wikipedia rules are silly, that doesnt mean we can force change of > > the rules when it comes to the vlog page on wikipedia. > > > > Now there is a wikipedia rule about ignoring the rules, which in an > > ideal world could have been used to try to address this issue, but I > > find the current debate practically unsalvagable as it has become too > > personal. > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > >
