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 criticizing it:
http://www.scripting.com/2005/06/11.html#peopleWithErasers This was picked up by other blogs and online news sites: http://tinyurl.com/27tzc8 http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-5980758-7.html http://tinyurl.com/2tb46o -- Enric -======- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 posted - he surely would have found no support > on Wikipedia for his view. But that's why I think that the debate > needs to - in a concise and non-confrontational way - be > acknowledged. So that you can say to someone like Winer (or Games, > who just followed Winer's lead), Look - this has been discussed for a > long time, and pretty much no one in all those discussions came up > with a definition that even vaguely matches your "Vlog it to NBC" > definition." > > On 1 May 2007, at 08:24, Enric wrote: > > 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, multiple, competing definitions and such is not > democracy, but just makes it hard for others to understand and > appreciate what the group is up to. It allows people like Dave Winer, > > http://tinyurl.com/37n9ld > > and Liz Games > > http://tinyurl.com/2bs35r > > to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers. > > -- Enric > -======- > http://cirne.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wallythewonderdog" > <wallythewarlord@> wrote: > > > > (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 at the most. > > > > So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the > > "definitive" - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now - > > entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for > > safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some > > one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain > > your own history, is it? > > > > This is not to excuse the rampant illogical "editing" of the vlog > > wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already > have > > happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe > > place! > > > > Respectfully, > > > > WtW > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wallythewonderdog" > > <wallythewarlord@> wrote: > > > > > > 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 thinks this any more than drunky wunky > > > talk....What did I miss? > > > > > > > > > WtW > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
