> 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 to anyone interested in Star Trek fan-created media. As far as I can see, all links/citations go back to other wikipedia articles...or blog posts. So what is the difference in what we are trying to do? is this article not valid because it doesnt have "traditional sources"...or are we being too strict? I can see the need to make sure the Vlog article remains neutral...but I think we have plenty of sources and reliability. We have several years of practice and examples. I worked with Pat at Vloggercon and really liked him. either there is some over-editing going on...or we just dont understand how wikipedia works. id love to hear Pat's comments on these recent posts. Ultimately what are we trying to do here? we're trying to make sure the spirit of Videoblogging can grow by documenting key concepts, examples, and history that the community has created over the past 3 years. And that's an eternity in internet time. As verdi and enric said, we could just make our own page...and come back to wikipedia another time. http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/videoblog Jay -- Here I am.... http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June!!!!
