Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia, probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of wikipedia, or lead to questions about conflict of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Its also true that people arent supposed to go around accusing eachother of conflicts of interest, and so thats why its probably just best for potentialy biased parties to steer clear of topics that are too close to home, or at least to read and digest the above page very carefully. As usual with these things, the rules are not totally set in stone, there can be exceptions, but all the nuanced detail of these processes and rules take many hours to read. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <steve@> > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
