> However, we've been making progress on the article since this group discussion has started
what you seem to be missing is that an effort by the community (including those who LITTERALLY wrote the book(s) on the topic, and the HUNDREDS who have been with this thing for the past three years) has attempted to be a part of a collaborative effort ... only to have all of those attempts summarily deleted WITHIN MINUTES. you have not shown an interest in working with the true community ... only in acting as the sole and sadly misguided gate keeper to a topic you do not have absolute knowledge on. I've seen MANY documents on wikipedia with notes that say 'there is some disagreement on this' or 'warning: needs citation' ... if you were interested in working with the community you would have added such notes to the page and asked for discussion at wikipedia ... not sheppard the converation into email after 2 years of delete-ask-questions-later. zero credability for wanting to work collaborativly on this. On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about > in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather > make personal attacks than to actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning > for my edits. > > i.e. "I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that I have only > contributed one sourced thing because this isn't about me." > > I never once deleted your cited contribution. Nor do I get pleasure from > removing your unsourced personal research from the article. > > I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially > vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the > reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and > source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the > article. > > This was the initial reason for deleting it: > "Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not > support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a > series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does > not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists > of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web > syndication." > > It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still > plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article > since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to > start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the > issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content. > Patrick > > On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It is not Mike. > > > > I submite the star trek fan made productions article and related star > > trek articles. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions > > > > The fact that said projects exists, and that they are noteworthy and > > being on wikipedia is in no way determined by the amount of mainstream > > articles on them. > > > > These articles are made possible by the small contribution of hundreds > > of editors working together as you can see on the history page. > > > > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productions&action=history > > > > When one editor dominates the discussion, particularly in deleting all > > contributions, discussion and collaboration fundamentally cannot > > happen. > > > > To put it quite simply... this is not a problem with original > > researcha and sources it's a problem with trolling. > > > > Make no mistake about it. If wikipedia has a fault it's that it > > doesn't have enough protections from trolling, specifically delete > > trolling. > > > > There are two things we can do about this. > > > > 1) persue banning of the troll... am working on it, and I encourage > > others to talk to wikipedia admins and others of experience on how to > > get the ball rolling on this > > > > 2) move the wikipedia article to pbwiki or some other place where we > > can protect it from trolling. I am waiting on this until we first take > > action with point #1. > > > > Peace, > > > > -Mike > > > > On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<michael%40michaelverdi.com>> > > wrote: > > > On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <jay.dedman%40gmail.com>> > > wrote: > > > > Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability > > > > I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press > > > > doesnt cover a story/event....then its probably not worth doing a > > > > wikipedia entry about. > > > > am i reading this correctly? > > > > > > > > seems weird that we have a completely new art form that has > > > > developed...and we're having difficulty providing information and the > > > > backstory. > > > > > > > > Jay > > > > > > This is so maddening. If this is really the way it works I'd rather > > > request that all articles about videoblogging be removed. To have to > > > wait for traditional media to call us up and misquote us so that the > > > > > > fucked-up-I-just-had-48-hours-to-research-this-article-so-I-kinda-copied-that-other-article-and-made-some-shit-up > > > version is what ends up in wikipedia is perfectly absurd. > > > > > > I can hardly stand talking about this anymore. > > > > > > FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK > > > > > > -Verdi > > > > > > -- > > > http://michaelverdi.com > > > http://spinxpress.com > > > http://freevlog.org > > > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
