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 it with a whole big chunk of text which tells the story of how videoblogging has been reported in the MSM with a LOT of footnotes, but I think it's more elegant and useful to have a comprehensive list for those seeking further information. It tells a story in itself, and it's hardly a link farm, which is what Wikipedia is trying to prevent by this rule. I think this use of the list, at this point in time, inhabits an acceptable grey area. But that's my opinion. I'm going to do some work now! Rupert http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ On 1 May 2007, at 05:38, Gena 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 section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion on a topic. Citation from an authorized and verifiable source is important. That verification can come from a number of sources. This can include traditional media. However even librarians (and those that hope to work among them) understand the rapidly increasing flow of information. We absolutely evaluate but don't restrict where good information can come from. For an quick example: Twitter. M$M (outside of the computer publications) hasn't a clue about what Twitter is or its functionality. If I had to write up a citation for Twitter there would be no point in searching traditional media, although I would do that as a matter of course. On the date of this post I'm not going to find a Twitter book or manual. What are the words, terms and concepts I need to understand? What is the vocabulary? Can I find multiple source to verify that vocabulary? I would also go to the source, i.e. the Twitter web site. I would look for competitors or vendors with a similar service. I would seek out and observe those people who would have a relationship with the service or who would have experience. This could be professional or highly advanced nerd or geek. Next, I would look at affinity groups (there must be a Twitter group someplace) and observe the posts for those persons who seem to know what they are talking about. They could led me to a verifiable or trusted source. My point is that there is a process to verifying information. It is not an exclusive "it can only come from one direction" process. Information has a flow, a relationship to the people that use it. It is organic not static. Course if you do it right there can be a kind of rapture in crafting just the right citation. Respectfully, Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
