Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are published books....if that isn't relevant then I don't know what is.
Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well I wasnt happy to see this group and things said in it being used > as evidence by both sides to argue their case, should have stuck to > the actual wikipedia issues. > > Anyway the call for a ban has now been removed, I believe it was > considered to be a personal dispute and the wrong thing was being > called for . > > The last post that was made before it was deleted seemed to sum things > up quite well, its broadly the same opinion as I have formed myself: > > "===Comments after looking at the evidence=== > - Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from > groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before > coming to CSN? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to > support each other this is a breach of WP:MEAT and a serious one - > [[WP:SPA|Single purpose accounts]] are not encouraged. Second although > Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible [[WP:COI]] problem > here - authors or those associated with them should ''not'' be adding > their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. <br /> > - I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Video_blog&diff=next&oldid=106060604 > here] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of > [[WP:NOR|original research]]. The only issue I could have with > Pdelongchamp is their slight [[WP:AGF|lack of AGF]] but this is not a > blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external > links from this version > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Video_blog&oldid=104826246] > - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens do media for > themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times" > 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal" & > "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only if they > were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is no malicous > intent from, no wrong doing by and no need for sanction against > Pdelongchamp. However I do think there should have been more of a > compromise on both sides. Mmeiser was trying to improve the article, > he was going about it wrong but the edits seem to be good faith<br /> > Mmeiser & the vloggers, you should have [[WP:RFC|requested comment]] > in order to build a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page or in > the very least Mmeiser should have taken [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] advice > and [[Wikipedia:Content_forking#Temporary_subpages|created temporary > page]] in their userspace. [[User:Adrian_M._H.]] has made a trojan > effort to mediate between Pdelongchamp and Mmeiser I recommend that > this block request be withdrawn and Adrian_M._H's advice taken > forthwith. As an uninvolved party I would be happy to host a temp > rewrite page in my userspace if this is of assitance to both > sides--[[User:Cailil|<font color="grey" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] > <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> > 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) > - PS there was an edit conflict haven't seen Pdelongchamp's post > yet--[[User:Cailil|<font color="grey" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] > <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]] </sup> > 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC) > > > I take particular note of their points about meatpuppets and conflicts > of interest. Had everyone from the group steamed onto wikipedia and > acted as some asked, this would have been a far more serious violation > of wikipedia than any of the editing thats ever been done to the > vlogging page by anybody. > > Anyway Im mostly interested in the articles, not people being > punished, so lets hope everything can calm down now, the wikipedia > entry can be useful but restrained, and otehr wikis can be a place for > more detail that doesnt meet wikipedias requirements. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" > <groups-yahoo-com@> wrote: > > > > FYi... I've *started* to back up the request for temporary banning of > > pdelongchamp on the vb article on wikipedia. > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard# Evidence_against_Pdelongchamp > > > > That's the full url, for some reason tiny urls don't support "a names" > > and the page is sort of long, so hopefully yahoo won't break the url, > > or if it does you can piece it back together, because it's really > > important stuff. > > > > I had wanted to take a day or two to just let it cool down... but > > unforetunatly it would have been over before it had begun as pat email > > that started this thread confirms. > > > > Admins were starting to just make snap judgements based on pat's > > evidence without considering that I hadn't posted any yet... just > > prsented the basis of the argument. > > > > Mistake or not I'd not yet begun to present evidence, merely presented > > the issue. > > > > I hope others will feel free to also add evidence of whatever sort > > they can offer. Specific instances are great, but don't feel you need > > to submit evidence. If you just leave a comment and show your support > > that'd be great. > > > > God knows i need all the help I can get. Presenting evidence of long > > term trolling is tough stuff. Pat rolls out one or two of his better > > edits... but how can I possibly sum up all the endless examples of > > deletes. > > > > I've broken it down into several sections. > > > > 1) community feedback, consensus and substantive evidence > > > > 2) Editing as a form of retribution > > > > 3) Repeated "mass blanking" aka mass deleting of article contents > > despite community consensus > > > > 4) Examples of chronic, unwarranted and persistent deletions > > > > Could use all the help I can get. > > > > P.S. Steve Watkins, no harm no fowl... you were right on on my failure > > to properly cite evidence. In my defense I merely stated the outline > > of my case... a first step. Now that I've at least started to post > > evidence I hope this does a lot to clarify the issue for you. > > > > If you still believe I'm full of crap please let me know, I value the > > honesty and third party perspective, and unlike others I have a fairly > > thick skin when it comes to name calling and foul language... my call > > on the carpet, or whatever you want to call it was do the urgency of > > the matter now that the admins are voting on it. > > > > Peace, > > > > -Mike > > mmeiser.com/blog > > > > On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins <steve@> wrote: > > > Great post :) You put it all exceedingly well. > > > > > > Thanks to Jays constructive approach, Ive joined wikipedia and am on > > > the talk page. Im doing a lot more reading before I do any daring > > > edits though. For me, judging by what Ive said here in the last few > > > days, my personal balancing act will be how to avoid being a wikinazi > > > whilst at the same time trying to keep in the spirit & guidelines of > > > wikipedia. I dont particularily want to become some hated gatekeeper, > > > but I would consider it a duty to keep the content broadly in line > > > with what wikipedia is supposed to be. > > > > > > Honestly I scratch my head sometimes over peoples attitudes to > > > publishing on the net. Theres some weird ideas that freedom of > > > speech/freedom of press means the right to have what you believe to be > > > true published anywhere you really think it should be. > > > > > > Anyway as part of the process of finding balance, I am currently > > > looking at which videoblogs, people, and services/sites have entries > > > in wikipedia. For that is another area frought with controversy, who > > > is considered notable enough to be included in a modern version of an > > > encyclopedia? Not me, I am sure of that, and long may it be so :) > > > Anyways here we quickly find outselves back in 'a-list' territory. > > > Perhaps this is another reason why wikipedias policies may seem > > > particularily innapropriate to many bloggers, the dream of the > > > importance of mass media diminishing, is shattered if you can only > > > become notable by being covered by mass media. > > > > > > No new technology or site or wiki is going to save us from ourselves, > > > oh human nature, if only we could evolve ye significantly in a > lifetime. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Kary Rogers <kr@> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
