Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged. > I've never looked up student newspapers though. I'd say there's a good > chance they're ok. You should check it out. > ... does this mean "The Journal of Exp

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged. I've never looked up student newspapers though. I'd say there's a good chance they're ok. You should check it out. On 5/3/07, Nick Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I can see that they are highly discouraged, because you have to pay money to view the source...not everyone can view them..and the list goes on.. but they are still HIGHLY creditable...LOL .. so why can't I put them?? what do you mean check it out? They are creditable...done. Check and done. Nick

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

So does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my article in the Wall Street Journal . It is a creditable source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Bravo! Tom Gosse, aka Irish Hermit [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.irishhermit.com _ From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins Sent: Wednesday, 02 May, 2007 2:17 PM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Cute! Cheers Monsieur Elbows, Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and > the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or > ignorant of these little-un

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Steve, Enric, Markus... thanks for making me laugh. :) You too Schlomo! laughter is the best medicine. :) On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and > the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Sull, you may want to update the link in the header of your crowdfunding.com blog so it points to the new pbwiki and not the deleted wikipedia entry. -Mike On 5/2/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Speaking of Crowd

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or ignorant of these little-understood forces. Some attached crude symbols of a youtubers defecating on the cross of St. RSS, to their front doors, in the hope that the

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Enric wrote: > > > --- In videoblogging@ yahoogroups. com > > , "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, carin

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Enric wrote: > --- In videoblogging@ yahoogroups. com > , "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > > > > Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having > > knowledge about videoblogging. > > > > Mathematics is not

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Speaking of Crowdfunding though > > I had moved the article here for anyone interested in editing it: > http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com/ > > and this is a cool project that has recognized Crowdfunding and is looking > fo

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I didn't think I was degrading anyone, this conversation confuses me, plain and simple, my comments come from confusion Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Josh Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree that a person doesn't have to be a vlogger to have an inte

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Nope it's not Schlomo.but then again what do I know. Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "schlomo rabinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/2/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation i

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

You've at least been involved with the group and you regualerly have some very interesting and thought provoking discussions. I don't care if you vlog or not, I don't care if Pat vlogs or not, I've seen you work within the community and work with others. I am not sure I see this from Pat, I've

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Id agree with that. There are clearly circumstances where doing is important. And for example, as a non-vlogger, if I spent my time ridiculing the efforts of everyone who 'does', telling people that there stuff isnt a vlog, saying its all rubbish or hatever, then I would be on very thin ice (but th

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

roups.com Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry On 5/2/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: <mailto:heathparks%40msn.com> com> wrote: > > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is > just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to ap

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I agree that a person doesn't have to be a vlogger to have an interest int he topic, of course it may lend more insight into the issue. and c'mon, Pat did videoblog, and quite well at that. He helped a lot at Vloggercon and is no less of a vlogger than myself... There is, however something to be s

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Cheers (yes) ; --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Heh Ive been on the end of such arguments before, my opinions > apparently deemed less worthy of consideration because, shock horror, > I didnt vlog regularily. And when I did vlog for vlogweek

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Heh Ive been on the end of such arguments before, my opinions apparently deemed less worthy of consideration because, shock horror, I didnt vlog regularily. And when I did vlog for vlogweek there was no way I was gonna talk about it here much, lest I be told that it was just a bad attempt to join s

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/2/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is > just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who > no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I > understand trying to work with someone, trying

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Den 02.05.2007 kl. 16:38 skrev Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is > > just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Den 02.05.2007 kl. 16:38 skrev Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is > just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who > no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I > understand trying to work with so

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Yes Heath. It is crazy. I dont get it at all why there is any sort of negotiations with this guy. Hooray for the madness. David http;//www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conver

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this just seems crazy..maybe it

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

LOL! Yeah! That is hilarious! Who'd have thought? Maybe you should go and delete the article? Or, at least prove that you are not being malicious towards the videoblog article and request citations on any of the articles Josh listed. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@y

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

gt; If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to > > find somewhere else to play. > > > > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with > > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, > > but I&#

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

ot repeatedly vandalised by some random fool. > > > > > > If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to > > > find somewhere else to play. > > > > > > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with > > >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 4/30/07, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. > > > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

If enough people filed a complaint about this guy to the powers that be at Wikipedia, would not something be done about him? How could Wikipedia deny putting this little putz in his place when faced with hundreds of emails complaining about him? Would a letter writing campaign help matters? Who w

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

> In fact I've long been enspired by the very example of this. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions I was trying to find an example like this today. its a wikipedia article about an internet project not covered by mainstream news. Its great, neutral information that is valuable

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/1/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media > standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with. That > is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how > new media is working. > > I don't underst

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/1/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi > "Person on Wikipedia who gets off on killing well-written articles of others. Subscribes to a ridiculously strict, yet abstract standard for what is and isn't "encyclopedic." Probably molests ch

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Go for it. http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/videoblog - Verdi On 5/1/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The field of net video is so dynamic and changing so quickly, that it > may make more sense to have definition and history on a trusted third > party wiki. And have the wikipedia ent

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with. That is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how new media is working. I don't understnad this conversation at all, I really don't. There

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sull, > > It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had > conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability.

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Has wikipedia administration been petitioned to stop Pdelongchamp from vandelizing? If so, what was the result? -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article > 'Crowdfunding'. > and yes, meiser

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

This whole thread is very interesting to me, but, due to a dislocated finger I cannot type well right now, One point is that Michael, Ryann et al, defined vlogs in their book, which surely falls within "real (old) media guidelines" - not to mention anything in Jay's book ... ... richard On 5/1/0

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I think the problem is that net video is a larger container than a blog. A flash video container can contain all the capabilities of a blog and more indicated by the blip.tv Show Player and others. What Steve Garfield states makes sense as capabilities required by net video, but not the specifi

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

The current definition is erroneous, "A Video blog, sometimes shortened to vlog,[1][2][3] is a blog that comprises video footage" Video footage is unedited video straight out of a camera shoot. A videoblog is video that is usually edited and rarely unedited video footage. -- Enric -

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that "show" option). It's a gray are

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with a way to link to them. On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: > Going with the definition that a > videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

It's not my focus right now to argue and support the thesis that definitions are necessary to be effective. The one piece of information I can readily provide is on Dave Winer and the wikipedia definition of Podcasting. When Adam Curry anonymously deleted information, Dave Winer came out in front

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Yeah, reading back I don't know why I wrote half of what I wrote this morning, other than that I'd had no sleep. I should just stop typing and go away for a while, clear my head. I wouldn't have intended to give the impression that I was supporting one position or the other. I personally do

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy > way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the > debate. > > It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was > disputed. Personally, I do

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http:// > www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre. > Patrick most certainly didn't agree with Richard. Please re-read that - it's a pretty good discussion especially i

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom >> >> _ >> >> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog >> Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [vide

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Behalf Of wallythewonderdog > Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry > > OK, fwiw: > > I did not get past this gem: > > "There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia w

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: "There's one catch thoug

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Yeah, sorry. I didn't actually mean not researched at all. Delete me! :) R On 1 May 2007, at 12:12, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone > like this to hold. It's d

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone > like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's > a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different > opinions on a concrete subject th

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

OF COURSE! How did i forget the amazing encyclopedic Fauxpress Vlogpresskit?? It was late. My brain was spongy from hand, foot and mouth disease. Perhaps this is also the answer to the debate over the list of media links. If all those articles listed on Wikipedia are in the Press Kit - and

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Thanks, Gena, Great post. I'm glad Patrick has not deleted this time, just used Wikipedia's proper markup for requesting changes according to his interpretation of the rules. As for the list of news sources, which (perhaps ironically) Patrick has marked for removal, I guess we could replace

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Sure, random definitions and multiple competing definitions that don't acknowledge each other are not desirable - but there is considerable debate about the definition and whatever any of us feel it *should* be, it's constantly evolving. I doubt Winer looked for a definition before he post

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the debate. It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not, and not just

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging (including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE: http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over. Jan On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's brilliant, isn't it

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime tonight)... Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging: http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/ http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74 I didn't exactly agree - http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-ana

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

My view is that it's the responsibility of a group to define itself and let that be clearly known to others. Now this doesn't mean that the definition is set in stone and stays static. It changes as the nature of the group and it's work changes and evolves. But to have random definitions, multip

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of > view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD > > Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video > Blog sect

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

(A half hour later...) Now I see the importance, I think. For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are at least important enough to document in some kind of historical record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful vandalism, at the least, but maybe also a

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video Blog section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion on a topic. Citation

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: "There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic." Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thin

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

i def think this guy has abused his privilige On 4/30/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, here's some wikipedia pages on edit abuse and vandalism: > > http://tinyurl.com/2hejny > http://tinyurl.com/23ob22 > > with links to other pages on the subject. > > -- Enric > > > --- In videoblo

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Also, here's some wikipedia pages on edit abuse and vandalism: http://tinyurl.com/2hejny http://tinyurl.com/23ob22 with links to other pages on the subject. -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petiti

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petition wikipedia to have them stop or to have the page locked. An example of a locked or protected page is the one on Todd Goldman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Goldman -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.co

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Yeah, you're right. It's the relentless wholesale deletion and reinstatement between Patrick and Mike that killed me, and made me stop assuming good faith. But you're right. And it *is* good that we're all looking at it again. On 1 May 2007, at 03:46, Steve Watkins wrote: I can see why its fru

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I can see why its frustrating but I really love wikipedia, and I do not agree that the burden of finding sources is on Patrick, Wikipedia makes it very clear that the burden is on the person who wants to add the information, and that such content runs the risk of being deleted if this isnt done. T

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Patrick, Thanks for replying here. The thing that I'm not happy with - and that Mike Meiser's not happy with - and Verdi, and Jan, and, and, and... is your destruction of content that has been crafted by many people with considerable care. You haven't just marked it as 'unverified', or even

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

> limiting all reference to a new media medium to those coming from > mainstream media is insane and shows a near complete ignorance of the > topic trying to be described Not to mention that wikis are considered new media, too! So a new medium is requiring an old medium to describe a new medium.

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I'm just an Wikipedian. (a regular joe that likes wikipedia) You can read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which are decided by editors like you and me) in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, one of the thing

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

limiting all reference to a new media medium to those coming from mainstream media is insane and shows a near complete ignorance of the topic trying to be described ... as such I suggest you stop editing the page. On 4/30/07, pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I seem t

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

What credentials do you actually have in deciding what should and what should not be posted in the Vlog entry in the Wikipedia? Please "cite" for us those references you have. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "pdelongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Den 01.05.2007 kl. 00:08 skrev pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into > it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs) You do realize that some blogs are written by people who are Certifiably Smart on

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Den 30.04.2007 kl. 23:28 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is > edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources > are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this > Group, which lists all t

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

The power of the internet does not give one person omnipotent power over all. Especially under the directives of the Wikipedia which is community based. Maybe just create a wiki for ourselves and then link to it within the sparsely populated Wikipedia wiki? No? David http://www.davidhowellstudio

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Hey everyone, I seem to be the topic of conversation today. I'm going to ignore the negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed interest in the article. The great thing about wikipedia is everyone can edit it. There’s one catch though, it’s an encyclopedia which means

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Yeah. It's the power of the internet that one person can cause so much trouble. I am hesitant about invoking censorship from above. The thing about this guy is that he's using the NPOV 'rules' of Wikipedia to do what he's doing, so there's a chance that they might even side with him, or make

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Let me get this straight. One disgruntled ex-videoblogger is causing all this strife over the wiki posting for this? One person?? Wow. Just...wow. If the powers that be at Wikipedia arent willing to help in this, then what's the point in banging heads against a wall? It's the proverbial definiti

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?" So we have to find

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

- Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate - Edit it - Copy the code - Return to the original page - Edit it - Paste code :) XO, Jan On 4/30/07, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. > > cheryl >

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that. cheryl www.hummingcrow.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > wow he's already undone it all ... > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large > quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, > of course. > > Rupert > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: > > > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblo

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

changed/removed by rational people, > of course. > > Rupert > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: > > > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: > > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: > > >I just reinstated MMeiser&

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

of vlogging, with > > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, > > but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large > > quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people, > > of course. > > &

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On Apr 30, 2007, at 9:59 am, Rupert wrote: > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track, > but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large > quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

t being changed/removed by rational people, of course. Rupert On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote: > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. > > > >

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that: >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page. have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becom

[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version. Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page. Jan On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has rather been decimated. > > Wow. > > Anybody? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog > > Jan > > -- > The Faux Press - better than rea