yes i wasn't being clear, i actually meant my article might not be
useful as a source for citing definitions of videoblogs, as it's about
colonisation of new media spaces by politicians.
:)
I'll write that one next ;-)
On 5/4/07, Richard (Show) Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok, fo
Ok, for the record, if the article you refer to is in a peer-reviewed
jornal, it's gone through at least as much serious scrutiny as anything
published in a book or via a traditional news media source
In fact, in a serious journal, if I try using a magazine/news article as a
reference, it would n
And thank god for that! Or rather... thank the peer-reviewers, but you
know what I mean.
Den 03.05.2007 kl. 23:18 skrev Stephanie Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That probably makes it a better source, actually. Academic journals
> have a much more rigorous review cycle than computer books.
>
> O
That probably makes it a better source, actually. Academic journals
have a much more rigorous review cycle than computer books.
On 5/3/07, trine bjørkmann berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i dont know if it's helpful, but I've added my short article on david
> cameron's videoblog to the wikipedia
i dont know if it's helpful, but I've added my short article on david
cameron's videoblog to the wikipedia article. (under all the book
entries) - i realise it's not on par with the books in terms of
citeability, but it's academic and published in a journal.
cheers
Trine
On 5/3/07, Jay dedman
Okayif you care about the wikipedia article on Videoblogging, lets
take all the conversation to that site. Ive jumped in here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Video_blog#Removed_section:_Dispute_over_terminology
"Pdelongchamp, since you seem to have a vision for this page, maybe
you can shar
