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 looked for the sources that I've found - you've deleted it again and again, and reconstructed the entry as your own.
It *is* possible to mark something as unverified, and therefore potentially untrustworthy without deleting it. In fact, in a niche subject on which there has been very little main stream analysis, I would say that this is your responsibility, otherwise you are actually impeding the aggregation of knowledge on that subject. In a larger entry, where there is more attention, there's a more efficient information market at work. An entry like this is a very *inefficient* market, where even those actively involved in the community are unaware of what's going on, and so needs to be handled more sensitively to avoid undue influence from any one party. You say that 'Great things are already happening' as a result of this discussion. This is in spite of - not because of - your efforts. It's 1.30am. I am ill, and I have wasted my entire evening reinstating what I consider valuable from previous versions (only those from the last week, - never mind what must have been lost in the past) and finding Mainstream Media sources for much of the content that you've previously deleted. I dug up these sources solely in order to try and bolster our argument that you should not delete this useful information. I shouldn't have had to do this. It upsets me that I have. How much easier would it have been if you had just gone out to find those sources and put them in, rather than making me have to replace and rewrite the whole piece before putting them in for you. How much more valuable would the entry be if it had not lost the nuances of discussion gathered along the way - and had not lost the support of those who felt dispirited by your actions? The irony is that the MSM articles I've quoted as sources to appease you, although they were in reputable journals, were mostly entertainment/tech puff pieces. Whenever I read this kind of material in daily newspapers about subjects I know intimately (like videoblogging), I'm invariably struck by how they fail to fully grasp the subject. They're taking an amateur snapshot and giving it a spin - and even if well-intentioned, it does not get the level of rigour demanded from news journalists, or those who specialize in a field, which presumably is what the Wikipedia Rules uphold as the highest level of verifiability. If you'd ever been in a job where you'd had feature journalists calling up and asking you to do their job for them by telling them everything you know about a subject so that they can write it down, funk it up a little and give it to their editor, you'd probably have a little more perspective on what's a verifiable source. I would say that on an average day, I read more bullshit in the paper than I do online. I know you'll come back and cite the Wikipedia Rules. I don't care. As always, it's *how* you apply the rules that matters. Rules can be over-extended, corrupted and abused to serve particular personal interests, and must be applied judiciously. What you have been doing has been perceived as selfish and destructive, masquerading as a service to the community and as adherence to the rulebook - in short, the behaviour of a mean-spirited civil servant. Now I'm very tired, and I'm going to bed before I say something I'll regret. All I'll say is, That's how it's been seen here, and I hope that that's enough to make you step back for a moment to consider things. Please give the article a chance to breathe, and do not delete anything more until we have had a good long chance to review it among ourselves. If you have issues with it, leave HTML comments in the text and notes on the discussion board. We will attempt to meet your concerns - I will certainly give them due attention and reply. Then, when you've given it some time, perhaps you can find two authoritative Wikipedia editors to help you assess what needs to be corrected according to the rules. Thanks, Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 1 May 2007, at 01:14, pdelongchamp wrote: 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 things that I found most surprising and hard to accept was this quote at the top of one of Wikipedia's core content policies: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It seems odd but it's interesting to read about why a policy like that might be a good thing. I find that particular policy super interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and this one too! It defines a reliable source and talks about why certain sources are considered reliable and why limiting editors to those sources will make a better article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources It's also important in Wikipedia to always assume good faith in other editors which is what I've had to try very hard to do in these last couple of emails. (because no matter how upset your emails may seem, i know (or "assume") that you want the best for the vlog wiki article and I keep that in mind when replying) But let's not waste any more energy here. If you really feel passionate about the article, go edit it! Be Bold! Use the Discussion page to discuss what you like, what you don't like. Great things are already happening. pd --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Howell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" > <pdelongchamp@> wrote: > > > > 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. Thereâs one catch though, itâs an encyclopedia which > > means the content must be encyclopedic. > > > > 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) > > > > Thereâs already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael > > Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to > contribute. > > > > Patrick D > > > > p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice. > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin" > > <jannie.jan@> wrote: > > > > > > Has rather been decimated. > > > > > > Wow. > > > > > > Anybody? > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > -- > > > The Faux Press - better than real > > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com > > > http://twitter.com/fauxpress > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
