I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged. I've never looked up student newspapers though. I'd say there's a good chance they're ok. You should check it out.
On 5/3/07, Nick Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So.... does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my article in the Wall > Street Journal > <http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.ht\ > ml?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month<http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.html?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month>> > . It is a creditable > source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a member > of wsj.com. > > Also what about the article that Josh Leo, Ryann, Sunny, Jay, & I from > the University of Illinois student newspaper > <http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30\ > /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\ > 078.shtml<http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30/News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814078.shtml>> > ? Is that creditable? > > So could I put those 2 sources on the vlog wiki? > My guess is no, because of the WIKIPI Police.. but that is fine with me. > > This is just kind of funny to me...but interested subject. > > Nick > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Patrick Delongchamp" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >--when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > > > I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video > blog > > should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia > has to > > set a standard so how low should they set it? > > > > Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published > sources > > because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we > lowered > > the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves > because > > there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. > Blogs > > can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable > > source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is > under > > debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate > is > > notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as > a > > another source to give more examples. > > > > > --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the > > > only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit > > > of your background so we know where you're coming from. You > > > are obviously very interested in defining the subject of > videoblogging. > > > > I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main > one. > > And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress > on it > > and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and > > hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with > my > > roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I > > naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. > > > > >I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very > > >new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group > > >since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You > > >can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a > > >traditional newspaper that may have to one of us....in order to add > to > > >the Vlog entry. > > > > >So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how > > >what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the > best > > >wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and > > >different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing > > >points of view? > > > > Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition > because > > videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. > > > > But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing > and > > doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my > opinion > > doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. > > > > Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. > Let's > > take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem > notable > > to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a > policy on > > what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the > dispute, > > we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or > care > > about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until > a > > reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is > all we > > can use in the encyclopedia article. > > > > I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because > Wikipedia > > is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may > not > > realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content > and > > hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many > more than > > are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree > with it > > at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't > exactly a > > notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot > more and > > it's definitely a hobby of mine now. > > > > So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's > > discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have > to go > > with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. > > > > On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like > those > > > of > > > > Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is > what I > > > > assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc > by > > > group > > > > members earlier. > > > > Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal > > > attacks > > > > don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding > encyclopedic > > > > content. > > > > Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people > > > contribute > > > > encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and > myself. > > > For > > > > the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see > more > > > > happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. > > > > I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after > we've > > > done > > > > some work on it. > > > > > > hey Patrick-- > > > > > > thanks for replying. > > > here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing > process. > > > --when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > > --also, from your user history > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdelongchamp), > it > > > looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? > Maybe > > > you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're > > > coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the > subject > > > of videoblogging. > > > > > > I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very > > > new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this > group > > > since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You > > > can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a > > > traditional newspaper that may have to one of us....in order to add > to > > > the Vlog entry. > > > > > > So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how > > > what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the > best > > > wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and > > > different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing > > > points of view? > > > > > > jay > > > > > > -- > > > Here I am.... > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > > > > Check out the latest project: > > > http://pixelodeonfest.com/ > > > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
