Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Richard (Show) Hall]

On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   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.
>




... does this mean "The Journal of Experimental Psychology" or "Science" or
the "New England Journal of Medicine" are discouraged a reliable sources?
(Since they require a subscription?)

... just trying to understand

... Richard

-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Patrick Delongchamp]

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
>  ml?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
>  /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\
> 078.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 ,
> "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 usin 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, 

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Tom Gosse]

Bravo!
 
Tom Gosse, aka Irish Hermit
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.irishhermit.com
  _  

From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Steve Watkins
Sent: Wednesday, 02 May, 2007 2:17 PM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
 
And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and
the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or
ignorant of these little-understood forces. Some attached crude
symbols of a youtubers defecating on the cross of St. RSS, to their
front doors, in the hope that the spectre's would leave them alone,
and pass them by in the night. Oter wnt out to fight, but found their
swords blunted by the rigours of logical analysis and intellectual debate.

We need a hero cried the masses, one who can communicate with the
great unwashed without them needing to brush up on their latin. And
out of the darkness came wikipedians, but they could not save us, for
they were shackled in the wonky prison of encyclopedic reference hell.
The only reliable sources are the ones I put on my dinner cried the
leper in the corner. 

Beware ye intellectuals, for the time of Gerald the Gadfly is upon
theee





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[groups-yahoo-com]

Steve, Enric, Markus... thanks for making me laugh. :)

You too Schlomo!

laughter is the best medicine. :)

On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And verily the intellectual plague did come upon the vlogosphere and
> the non-academic vloggers did shelter in their homes, fearful or
> ignorant of these little-understood forces. Some attached crude
> symbols of a youtubers defecating on the cross of St. RSS, to their
> front doors, in the hope that the spectre's would leave them alone,
> and pass them by in the night. Oter wnt out to fight, but found their
> swords blunted by the rigours of logical analysis and intellectual debate.
>
> We need a hero cried the masses, one who can communicate with the
> great unwashed without them needing to brush up on their latin. And
> out of the darkness came wikipedians, but they could not save us, for
> they were shackled in the wonky prison of encyclopedic reference hell.
> The only reliable sources are the ones I put on my dinner cried the
> leper in the corner.
>
> Beware ye intellectuals, for the time of Gerald the Gadfly is upon
> theee
>
> Steve Elbows
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Markus Sandy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The  problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics
> > and Physics
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Markus Sandy
> >
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
> > http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[groups-yahoo-com]

Sull, you may want to update the link in the header of your
crowdfunding.com blog so it points to the new pbwiki and not the
deleted wikipedia entry.

-Mike

On 5/2/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of Crowdfunding though
> >
> > I had moved the article here for anyone interested in editing it:
> > http://crowdfunding.pbwiki.com/
> >
> > and this is a cool project that has recognized Crowdfunding and is
> looking
> > for people interested in this topic to research, write and edit
> material.
> > It is a joint project between Wired.com and NewAssignment.net.
>
> Congrats, Sull!
>
>   -- Enric
>
> >
> > http://zero.newassignment.net/assignmentzero/crowdfunding
> >
> > Who needs wikipedia! ;)
> >
> > Sull
> >
> > On 5/1/07, Patrick Delongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >   Sull,
> > >
> > > It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had
> > > conversations with you in the past on the importance of verifiability.
> > > Yes,
> > > I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion. However, other editors
> voted and
> > > agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't
> contain any
> > > sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the
> article
> > > consisted entirely of original research. (A violation of
> Wikipedia's core
> > > content policies)
> > >
> > > See the discussion here:
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding
> > >
> > > You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been
> > > deleted
> > > on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of.
> > >
> > > Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog
> article's
> > > content for many of the same reasons. For months I have tried to
> discuss
> > > the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research,
> indiscriminate
> > > links, and the need to cite content from the article. As responses, I
> > > received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my
> > > encyclopedic reasoning.
> > >
> > > What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the
> help of
> > > a
> > > Wikipedia Administrator. The result was not surprising.
> > >
> > > a) The administrator did not reinstate the content.
> > >
> > > b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of
> verifiability
> > > and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate
> page
> > > and
> > > have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it
> into the
> > > article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as
> he uses
> > > citations when making contributions)
> > >
> > > I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together
> > > constructively to reintroduce the content with sources. (what i
> had been
> > > trying to do all along) He, once again, wrote a long rant, made
> personal
> > > attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog
> > > article.
> > >
> > > To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of
> > > content
> > > to the article. (which i have never deleted)
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > > On 5/1/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article
> > > > 'Crowdfunding'.
> > > > and yes, meiser has been battling for months.
> > > > fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games.
> > > >
> > > > On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp -
> > > constantly
> > > > > fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's
> > > pathetic.
> > > > I
> > > > > can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the
> article
> > > > as
> > > > > his changes usually get deleted within hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Verdi
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <
> > > > jannie.jan%40gmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Markus Sandy]

Enric wrote:

> --- In videoblogging@ yahoogroups. com 
> , "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote:
>
> >
> > Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having
> > knowledge about videoblogging.
> >
>
> Mathematics is not a prerequisite for formulating, understanding or
> knowledge about physics?
>
> -- Enric
>

this indeed appears to be the case

or at least not with our traditional Mathematics

see "A New Kind of Science" by Steven Wolfram

http://www.wolframscience.com/

The  problems we are discussing here have long plagued both Mathematics 
and Physics



-- 


Markus Sandy

http://feeds.feedburner.com/apperceptions
http://feeds.feedburner.com/digitaldojo
http://feeds.feedburner.com/havemoneywillvlog
http://feeds.feedburner.com/spinflow



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[tim]

I'm with you Schlomo. Crazy.

But it does take one tiny grain of sand does make a pearl.


Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.  

-Original Message-
From: "schlomo rabinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 07:57:54 
To:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/2/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: <mailto:heathparks%40msn.com> com> wrote:
 >
 > Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is
 > just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who
 > no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I
 > understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this
 > just seems crazy..maybe it's just me
 >
 
 Yes, Heath, I am in total agreement with you. It's so rediculous, its
 redonkulous. Yes, it deserves its own made-up word-- that's how far
 away its gone from anything rooted within reality.
 
 But then, I also don't care about anyones definition of videoblog
 either. Sure, its interesting to talk about over a beer, but I just
 spent the last 20min catching up on this thread and felt more robbed
 of my time than I did watching Heroes last week. Now its just people
 writing profanity as communication.
 
 But really, the question I need to know: Do we still consider
 Rocketboom a videoblog? And why isnt that question answered in the
 Wikipedia article?
 
 (ducks)
 
 Schlomo
 http://schlomolog.: <http://schlomolog.blogspot.com> blogspot.com
 http://hatfactory.: <http://hatfactory.net> net
 http://winkshow.: <http://winkshow.com> com
 
   

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Josh Leo]

I agree that a person doesn't have to be a vlogger to have an interest int
he topic, of course it may lend more insight into the issue. and c'mon, Pat
did videoblog, and quite well at that. He helped a lot at Vloggercon and is
no less of a vlogger than myself...

There is, however something to be said for the "doers" vs the "sayers" in
other areas... for example, someone who says "coffee farmers need to get
paid fair wages" but then chooses to not drink fair trade coffee... "sayers"
must make sure that their actions don't make them hypocritical...much like
those who say community and support is important here but continue to
degrade, insult, and belittle others on this list...

p.s. my previous post about the other wikipedia entries was not an attack at
Pat, but  the practice of throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

On 5/2/07, Steve Watkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> Long Live wikipedia! Death to elites! Down with any strategy that aims
> to diminish the opinions of others based on who they are and what they
> do, rather than the merit of what they are saying.
>
> Cheers (not)
>
> Steve Elbows
>
>
>


-- 
Josh Leo

www.JoshLeo.com
www.WanderingWestMichigan.com
www.SlowLorisMedia.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[schlomo rabinowitz]

On 5/2/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is
>  just "whacked"? I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who
>  no longer even VLOGS! Does this seem weird to anyone? I
>  understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this
>  just seems crazy..maybe it's just me
>

Yes, Heath, I am in total agreement with you.  It's so rediculous, its
redonkulous.  Yes, it deserves its own made-up word-- that's how far
away its gone from anything rooted within reality.

But then, I also don't care about anyones definition of videoblog
either.  Sure, its interesting to talk about over a beer, but I just
spent the last 20min catching up on this thread and felt more robbed
of my time than I did watching Heroes last week.  Now its just people
writing profanity as communication.

But really, the question I need to know:  Do we still consider
Rocketboom a videoblog?  And why isnt that question answered in the
Wikipedia article?

(ducks)

Schlomo
http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
http://hatfactory.net
http://winkshow.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

Den 02.05.2007 kl. 16:38 skrev Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Is there anyone besides me, that thinks this whole conversation is
> just "whacked"?  I mean basicly we are trying to appease a person who
> no longer even VLOGS!  Does this seem weird to anyone?  I
> understand trying to work with someone, trying to teach, but this
> just seems crazy..maybe it's just me

Videoblogging is not a prerequisite for talking, caring and having  
knowledge about videoblogging.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Mike Meiser]

Rupert, I strongly suggest staying away from anything that requires to
sentences of explanation.

Let's just ignore the debate about wether youtube is or is not
videoblogging and instead for example add sourced references to the
timeline as to important events in the history of youtube.

In the meantime we can discuss wether youtube is or is not a
videoblogging platform either here or on the talk page.

Wether it is or isn't should not hold any bearing as to wether it's
growth is relevant to the growth of videoblogging... because it's
growth parrellels videoblogging... that's all that need really be said
as to it's relevence.

Any articles that reference youtube and vlogging in the same article
would also be extremely interesting... such as an article calling
LisaNova or Brookers a vlogger.

-Mike

On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, you and Jen are right about the Vtech stuff. thanks for taking
> it out.
>
> It arose from me wanting to put in more about YouTube and the
> increasingly blurred perception of what vlogging is, but not knowing
> where to start.  The first line of the entry, I felt, excluded the
> idea and reality of vlogging as I imagine it's perceived by a lot of
> people and was limited to the point of being misleading to a
> newcomer.   Anyway, to be discussed there, not here.  Agreed that
> YouTube needs a lot more representation there.  Hopefully some happy
> Vlogging YouTuber will pitch in.
>
> Rupert
>
> On 30 Apr 2007, at 16:26, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage wrote:
>
> I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again.
>
> There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a
> friend
> of mine. The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have
> parted,
> that kind of love was the killin' kind.
>
> Sorry, I wrote "there was a time" and Aerosmith just started spewing
> out all
> over the place.
>
> Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the
> past. I
> don't think the collective "we" should be policing it to ensure it's
> homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/
> subtract
> as we see fit, whenever we desire.
>
> For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff. Not really
> vlogging-related. Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as
> that was
> an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter)
> sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of
> videoblogging by any means.
>
> ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns
> with
> the idea of an awards show for videoblogging. They're pretentious and
> pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld
> said
> earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4
>
> pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they
> are in
> passing. Pretty insular.
>
> On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  >
>  > Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,
>  > and we're the Crazy 88?
>  >
>  > Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you
>  > can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see
>  > are right, whoever makes them.
>  >
>  > I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -
>  > particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting
>  > point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented
>  > there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.
>  >
>  > If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to
>  > find somewhere else to play.
>  >
>  > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
>  > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
>  > but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
>  > quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
>  > of course.
>  >
>  > Rupert
>  >
>  > On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:
>  >
>  > > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about
> [videoblogging] Re:
>  > > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
>  > > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
>  > > >
>  > > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
>  > >
>  > > have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either
> becomes
>  > > some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
>  > > --
>  > > cheers
>  > > Adrian Miles
>  > > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
>  > > vogmae.net.au
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
> --
> Adam Quirk
> Wreck & Salvage
> 551.208.4644
> Brooklyn, NY
> http://wreckandsalvage.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Mike Meiser]

Thankyou. Thank you. Thank you!

I was actually attempting to add information on youtube when this
recent spat with Pat started.

Don't worry about adding a section.  Please, just site important dates
and events in the history of youtube in the timeline.

When youtube started, when it sold to google for 1.6billion any
events that will put videoblogging's explosion into context.

also... - when Youtuber LisaNova went to Mad TV... and When Brookers
went to MTV...   major lawsuits, like viacom, and otherwise.

-Mike

On 4/30/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> psss I added some YouTube info in the history timeline.  YouTube is the
> biggest thing to happen to videoblogging ever ever ever ever.  There should
> be a whole section on it, but a YouTuber should write it, not me.
>
> On 4/30/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again.
> >
> > There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a
> > friend of mine.  The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have
> > parted, that kind of love was the killin' kind.
> >
> > Sorry, I wrote "there was a time" and Aerosmith just started spewing out
> > all over the place.
> >
> > Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past.
> > I don't think the collective "we" should be policing it to ensure it's
> > homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/subtract
> > as we see fit, whenever we desire.
> >
> > For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff.  Not really
> > vlogging-related.  Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was
> > an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter)
> > sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of
> > videoblogging by any means.
> >
> > ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with
> > the idea of an awards show for videoblogging.  They're pretentious and
> > pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said
> > earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4
> >
> > pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are
> > in passing.  Pretty insular.
> >
> > On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,
> > > and we're the Crazy 88?
> > >
> > > Bring it on.  Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you
> > > can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see
> > > are right, whoever makes them.
> > >
> > > I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -
> > > particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting
> > > point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented
> > > there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.
> > >
> > > If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to
> > > find somewhere else to play.
> > >
> > > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
> > > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
> > > but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
> > > quantities.  Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
> > > of course.
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > >
> > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:
> > >
> > > > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
> > > > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
> > > > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
> > > > >
> > > > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
> > > >
> > > > have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes
> > > > some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
> > > > --
> > > > cheers
> > > > Adrian Miles
> > > > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> > > > vogmae.net.au
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Adam Quirk
> > Wreck & Salvage
> > 551.208.4644
> > Brooklyn, NY
> > http://wreckandsalvage.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adam Quirk
> Wreck & Salvage
> 551.208.4644
> Brooklyn, NY
> http://wreckandsalvage.com
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Mike Meiser]

On 4/30/07, Adrian Miles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
> Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
> >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
> >
> >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
>
> have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes
> some weird escalated battle or he gives in?

I'm glad to see you comment here. I can't tell you how many times I've
seen your articles cited only to be deleted. I hope we can find a way
to cite more of your materials if we ever get this thing straightened
out.

As for engagine in a reversion war... rupert and jan of Faux Press
also suggested it. I'm persuing getting him banned... but since you
all came to the logical conclusion maybe this is the best bet.

I'll compose an email on the best proper actions in a revision war.

-Mike

> --
> cheers
> Adrian Miles
> this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> vogmae.net.au
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Jay dedman]

> 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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Mike Meiser]

On 5/1/07, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media
> standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with.  That
> is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how
> new media is working.
>
> I don't understnad this conversation at all, I really don't.  There
> are people on this list who basicly CREATED videoblogging, and you
> are telling them how it should be defined?  Oh I guess it's Wikipedia
> who is telling them, right?
>
> It's an evolving process right now, vlogging is being defined and re-
> defined as we speak, the article needs to grow with it...but that is
> just my opinion...

Heath... I hear your pain, I do believe what Pat says is an
impossibility, contradictory and an impossible standard. This is
typical of delete trolls... what I'm sure we'll see if this
conversation continues is that wikipedia's rules on sources and
original research DO account for evolving topics.

In fact I've long been enspired by the very example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions

it's not just that page... which illustrates both that things can be
factual and noteworthy without being citing newspaper article... it's
also that most of the startrek articles wouldn't even exist by Pat's
standards.

Needless to say pat's interpretation is a deviation from the the
actuality and reality that is wikipedia's standards.

Not to get off point, the point being what actually are the wikipedia
guidelines on citation, but the biggest problem I have is that Pat
flaunts one of the pillars of wikipedia completely ignoring it and
refusing in our conversations to even acknowlege it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy

As cited on the vlogging talk page wich Pat so conveniently deleted
only a few days later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Video_blog&oldid=127297968


---being quote-
It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final
draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged.

However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that
incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into
polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of
collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other
ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough
drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.

One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few
random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else
can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another
can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier
opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have
facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix
the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout
these multiple edits.

As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to
turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and
it may also be rewritten... and so on.

During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or
worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being
horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and
have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose.

[...]

With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to
suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be
discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's
desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without
prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you
delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce
the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments.

So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing
bits of an article include:

   * duplication or redundancy
   * irrelevancy
   * patent nonsense
   * copyright violations
   * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the
problems first before deletion)

Alternatives include:

   * rephrasing
   * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
   * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
   * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
   * requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag
end quote-

So...  there's that policy... which would strongly seem to suggest
that whether perfect or imperfect the automatic deletion of all
contributions by a user for any reason except for out right spam isn't
exactly in keeping with wikipedia policy.

But let us get back to the discussion of Original Research and sources.

-Mike

> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >--when you say "the need 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Mike Meiser]

On 5/1/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi
>

"Person on Wikipedia who gets off on killing well-written articles of
others. Subscribes to a ridiculously strict, yet abstract standard for
what is and isn't "encyclopedic." Probably molests children in spare
time."

Thanks enric, that made my day.

It's hilarious. It shows how common this issue is, it's not even an
original issue... I guess I should have done something sooner.  I'm
pursuing the advisement of wikipedia admins. It takes time.

I suspect there's a process for suggesting a user be banned from
editing an article  I have no doubt we'll have any trouble with the
process once initiated.

If anyone else knows anyone such as Jimmy Wales who has a bit of time
and advice and can refer us to the right person or process for having
a delete troll banned from editing an article please simply proceed.

On a side note,

A friend of mine suggested I add Pat's history to articles on
retributive editing and delete trolling as they're absolutely classic
cases.

Maybe if we document the commonality of these actions people will
become more aware that their going on and it'll be easier to figure
out how to deal with them.

-Mike

>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Sull,
> >
> > It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had
> > conversations with you in the past on the importance of
> verifiability.  Yes,
> > I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion.  However, other editors
> voted and
> > agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any
> > sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the
> article
> > consisted entirely of original research.  (A violation of
> Wikipedia's core
> > content policies)
> >
> > See the discussion here:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding
> >
> > You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been
> deleted
> > on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of.
> >
> > Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog
> article's
> > content for many of the same reasons.  For months I have tried to
> discuss
> > the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate
> > links, and the need to cite content from the article.  As responses, I
> > received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my
> > encyclopedic reasoning.
> >
> > What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the
> help of a
> > Wikipedia Administrator.  The result was not surprising.
> >
> > a) The administrator did not reinstate the content.
> >
> > b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of
> verifiability
> > and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate
> page and
> > have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it
> into the
> > article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses
> > citations when making contributions)
> >
> > I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together
> > constructively to reintroduce the content with sources.  (what i had
> been
> > trying to do all along)  He, once again, wrote a long rant, made
> personal
> > attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog
> > article.
> >
> > To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of
> content
> > to the article. (which i have never deleted)
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > On 5/1/07, sull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >   that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article
> > > 'Crowdfunding'.
> > > and yes, meiser has been battling for months.
> > > fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games.
> > >
> > > On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp -
> constantly
> > > > fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's
> pathetic.
> > > I
> > > > can't believe Meiser still has the patien

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Michael Verdi]

Go for it.
http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/videoblog
- Verdi

On 5/1/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   The field of net video is so dynamic and changing so quickly, that it
> may make more sense to have definition and history on a trusted third
> party wiki. And have the wikipedia entry removed or not considered
> relavant.
>
> The steps used to define a microformat may be put to use for this.
> One of the important steps is finding common usage on the internet to
> create a standard:
>
> http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Propose_a_Microformat
>
> paraphrasing the page:
>
> "...A pattern has emerged from successful microformat development
> efforts of several specific kinds of wiki pages being created, in a
> particular order (though not always)
>
> 1. *-examples. Find examples on today's web of the the type of content
> you think needs a microformat. Document them with URLs. Document the
> implicit schemas that the content examples imply. This is the action
> that helps follow principle 3, design for humans first, machines
> second ... adapt to current behaviors and usage patterns. Start by
> cloning the examples page and filling it out."
>
> So real examples of the different videoblog types are listed on a wiki
> and common attributes are abstracted from them toward the definition.
>
> -- Enric
> -==-
> http://cirne.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Michael Verdi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/eventthen 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
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Richard (Show) Hall]

This whole thread is very interesting to me, but, due to a dislocated finger
I cannot type well right now,

One point is that Michael, Ryann et al, defined vlogs in their book, which
surely falls within "real (old) media guidelines" - not to mention anything
in Jay's book ...

... richard

On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> wrote:
> > I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy
> > way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the
> > debate.
> >
> > It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was
> > disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not,
> > and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided
> > romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think
> > one side has to *win*.
>
> Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you
> go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a
> videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
> of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
> eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not
> such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least
> allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to
> be encompassed.
>
> - Verdi
>
> --
> http://michaelverdi.com
> http://spinxpress.com
> http://freevlog.org
> Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
>  
>



-- 
Richard
http://richardhhall.org
Shows
http://richardshow.org
http://inspiredhealing.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[David King]

I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and
an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a
MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or
blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that "show" option).

It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store
video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using
YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is
valid).

If the definition is "video on a blog" - I think "blog" is generally
recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube isn't
one.

Does that make sense?

-- 
David King
davidleeking.com - blog
http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog

On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a
> blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with
> a way to link to them.
>
> On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:
>
> > Going with the definition that a
> > videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
> > of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
> > eliminates everything published only on YouTube
>
> --
> Steve Garfield
> http://SteveGarfield.com
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Steve Garfield]

To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a  
blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with  
a way to link to them.


On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:

>  Going with the definition that a
> videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
> of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
> eliminates everything published only on YouTube

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Yeah, reading back I don't know why I wrote half of what I wrote this  
morning, other than that I'd had no sleep.  I should just stop typing  
and go away for a while, clear my head.
I wouldn't have intended to give the impression that I was supporting  
one position or the other.  I personally don't feel particularly  
passionate about the definition, or as capable of arguing one way or  
the other as a lot of other people.  I'm all for as open a definition  
as possible, and a section on the wikipedia page which acknowledges  
that there is a debate, if other people think that's acceptable.
Sorry I was hasty in writing, I'm going to unplug for a while.
Rupert

On 1 May 2007, at 16:24, Michael Verdi wrote:

On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy
 > way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the
 > debate.
 >
 > It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was
 > disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not,
 > and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided
 > romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think
 > one side has to *win*.

Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you
go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a
videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not
such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least
allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to
be encompassed.

- Verdi

-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Michael Verdi]

On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy
>  way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the
>  debate.
>
>  It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was
>  disputed.   Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not,
>  and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided
>  romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog.  And I don't think
>  one side has to *win*.

Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you
go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a
videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not
such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least
allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to
be encompassed.

- Verdi

-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Michael Verdi]

On 5/1/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http://
>  www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre.
>

Patrick most certainly didn't agree with Richard. Please re-read that
- it's a pretty good discussion especially in light of a world where
many of the people on YouTube call themselves vloggers and many many
many sites on the web now include video.

- Verdi


-- 
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Steve Garfield]

I went over to Harvard last night for David Weinberger's talk about  
his new book, Everything Is Miscellaneous.

One part of his talk was about Wikipedia and how it drives experts  
away because of the need for citations for everything.  I hope I got  
that right...  I've got his book and will read it to see if I can  
better summarize what he was saying.  He had really funny pictures  
that made it very clear

I was extremely frustrated trying to add information on Wikipedia and  
fought a long and hard fight to get the top definition the way I  
thought it should be.


On May 1, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Heath wrote:

> The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact
> that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia.
>
> You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to
> help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out
> information is instead worthless, look at the
> page, "unverified", "disputed", etc and etc,
>
> oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is
> gone, no...wait, it's backoh, nope its gone...oh, back again
>
> how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back
> and forth squalibling.it's sad.just sad.
>
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Gosse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes,  the classic case of circular definitions.  That is
> repeating the
>> defined term within the definition itself.  This is the kind of
> writing that
>> my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big
> red
>> pencil.
>>
>> Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom
>>
>>   _
>>
>> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog
>> Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM
>> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
>>
>> 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
>> talkWhat did I miss?
>>
>> WtW
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Tom Gosse]

Ah yes,  the classic case of circular definitions.  That is repeating the
defined term within the definition itself.  This is the kind of writing that
my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big red
pencil.
 
Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom
 
  _  

From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog
Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
 
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
talkWhat did I miss?

WtW
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Yeah, sorry. I didn't actually mean not researched at all.  Delete  
me! :)
R

On 1 May 2007, at 12:12, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:

Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

 > The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone
 > like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's
 > a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different
 > opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically
 > researched.

Videoblogs have been researched, not by many, but they there. At the  
very
least there is a lot of blog research that can be applied without too  
many
issues. Back in 2005 I did a short, short list which includes a  
couple of
vlog papers http://www.solitude.dk/archives/2005-1530/ >

In our own community alone we have Adrian Miles (and the rest of the  
RMIT
crew, you know who you are), Trine Berry, Richard Hall, Kristoffer  
Gansing
plus the large group of grad students (too many to count, but they're  
very
smart. I know because I'm one). I approve all the members on the
vlogtheory group so I know for a fact there are many in the academics  
who
either work with vlogs or are interested in working with vlogs in the
future.

I think the issue is that those who are involved in research are not
interested in the wikipedia article and who can blame them when  
everything
gets deleted en masse? My own reason for not getting involved is that  
the
Neutral Point of View policy more often than not gets interrpreted as No
Point of View and I don't have time for that crap (See http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ > ).

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone
> like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's
> a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different
> opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically
> researched.

Videoblogs have been researched, not by many, but they there. At the very  
least there is a lot of blog research that can be applied without too many  
issues. Back in 2005 I did a short, short list which includes a couple of  
vlog papers http://www.solitude.dk/archives/2005-1530/ >

In our own community alone we have Adrian Miles (and the rest of the RMIT  
crew, you know who you are), Trine Berry, Richard Hall, Kristoffer Gansing  
plus the large group of grad students (too many to count, but they're very  
smart. I know because I'm one). I approve all the members on the  
vlogtheory group so I know for a fact there are many in the academics who  
either work with vlogs or are interested in working with vlogs in the  
future.

I think the issue is that those who are involved in research are not  
interested in the wikipedia article and who can blame them when everything  
gets deleted en masse? My own reason for not getting involved is that the  
Neutral Point of View policy more often than not gets interrpreted as No  
Point of View and I don't have time for that crap (See http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ > ).

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

OF COURSE!  How did i forget the amazing encyclopedic Fauxpress  
Vlogpresskit??
It was late.  My brain was spongy from hand, foot and mouth disease.
Perhaps this is also the answer to the debate over the list of media  
links.
If all those articles listed on Wikipedia are in the Press Kit - and  
I'm sure they are - could we have instead have a small section with a  
paragraph which describes the development of the media interest in  
vlogging, and then link to the vlogpresskit for further reading?

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/


On 1 May 2007, at 11:15, Jan McLaughlin wrote:

I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging
(including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE:

http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit

Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over.

Jan

On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is
 > edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources
 > are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this
 > Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
 > So we have to find MSM sources for that?
 > Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite
 > robust.
 > Rupert
 >
 > On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
 >
 > - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
 > - Edit it
 > - Copy the code
 > - Return to the original page
 > - Edit it
 > - Paste code
 >
 > :)
 >
 > XO,
 > Jan
 >
 > On 4/30/07, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > >
 > > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately
 > see that.
 > >
 > > cheryl
 > > www.hummingcrow.com
 > >
 > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade"  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 > > wrote:
 > > >
 > > > wow he's already undone it all ...
 > > >
 > > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to
 > fight the
 > > > good fight) :-)
 > > >
 > > > - Dave
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Yahoo! Groups Links
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 > --
 > The Faux Press - better than real
 > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
 > http://twitter.com/fauxpress
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 >
 >
 >

-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

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"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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"
 >  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
 > > talkWhat did I miss?
 > >
 > >
 > > WtW
 > >
 >






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy  
way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the  
debate.

It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was  
disputed.   Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not,  
and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided  
romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog.  And I don't think  
one side has to *win*.

Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http:// 
www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre.

In a small community, one person can hold disproportionate power just  
by doing more than anyone else is prepared to.  It's a difficult  
balance - you want people to lead, and get involved - but you don't  
want them to do too much or their opinion dominates to the detriment  
of other valid (but more quietly voiced) opinions.

The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone  
like this to hold.  It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion.  It's  
a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different  
opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically  
researched.

The ideal scenario when one person is wielding disproportionate power  
is that the whole community makes their opinions heard - and when  
there are differences of opinion as to a definition, as there are  
here, a middle path is followed - a compromise is reached.

The people who want it all their own way will say that that's what  
they're doing - that Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and  
original research, and so they delete everything that's not sourced.   
One group of purists wanted to delete the video blog entry completely  
at one point, and it almost happened, which would have been absurd  
IMO.  Richard BF blamed this proposed deletion on the messy  
discussions in the entry to try and bolster his own point, which was  
not true - the deletion was part of a wider semantic cleansing  
program by people who wanted to strip down definitions relating to  
blogging.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to get back into the  
polarised discussions of whether it's a genre, a sub-genre, whether  
it exists at all.

Let's have an entry that acknowledges the disagreements in a simple  
paragraph or two, and moves on to embrace all sides of the  
definition.  That will be a far more informative entry for people  
wanting an authoritative reference.  But we won't get there if we  
keep getting every addition deleted.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/




  On 1 May 2007, at 08:44, Michael Verdi wrote:
A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime  
tonight)...

Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging:
http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/
http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74

I didn't exactly agree -
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/

Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) -
http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433

Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had
already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated
by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video -
http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before
all the editing that he talks about happened -
http://tinyurl.com/27kyht

January 2006 the VlogTheory list started -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after
Vloggercon 2006

I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and
Richard wrote a bit also.
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/
Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173
and later writes a definition of videoblogging -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771
(Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments
all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well)

It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after
Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was
left of the already sparse article.

So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's
one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later
all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o

Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes
within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser

As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I
just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off
to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before.

- Verdi





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Jan McLaughlin]

I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging
(including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE:

http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit

Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over.

Jan

On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is
> edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources
> are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this
> Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
> So we have to find MSM sources for that?
> Keep going.  We've only just begun.  We're going to have to be quite
> robust.
> Rupert
>
> On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
>
> - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
> - Edit it
> - Copy the code
> - Return to the original page
> - Edit it
> - Paste code
>
> :)
>
> XO,
> Jan
>
> On 4/30/07, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately
> see that.
> >
> > cheryl
> > www.hummingcrow.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > wow he's already undone it all ...
> > >
> > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to
> fight the
> > > good fight) :-)
> > >
> > > - Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/fauxpress
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Michael Verdi]

A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime tonight)...

Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging:
http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/
http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74

I didn't exactly agree -
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/

Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) -
http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433

Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had
already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated
by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video -
http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before
all the editing that he talks about happened -
http://tinyurl.com/27kyht

January 2006 the VlogTheory list started -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after
Vloggercon 2006

I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and
Richard wrote a bit also.
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/
Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173
and later writes a definition of videoblogging -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771
(Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments
all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well)

It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after
Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was
left of the already sparse article.

So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's
one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later
all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o

Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes
within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser

As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I
just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off
to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before.

- Verdi

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Irina]

i def think this guy has abused his privilige

On 4/30/07, Enric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>   Also, here's some wikipedia pages on edit abuse and vandalism:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2hejny
> http://tinyurl.com/23ob22
>
> with links to other pages on the subject.
>
> -- Enric
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If someone abuses a wikipedia page you can petition wikipedia to have
> > them stop or to have the page locked. An example of a locked or
> > protected page is the one on Todd Goldman:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Goldman
> >
> > -- Enric
> > -==-
> > http://cirne.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com ,
> Rupert  wrote:
> > >
> > > "I can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the
> > > article as his changes usually get deleted within hours. - Verdi"
> > >
> > > Well, doesn't look like he does have the patience any more, sadly.
> > > On Meiser's Talk page on Friday, he said he's now going to give up,
> > > exhausted by Patrick Delongchamp's repeated 'delete trolling.'
> > >
> > > So Meiser has spent a long time protecting the entry from this sad
> > > little man on a power trip. Not just Meiser's own work, but the
> > > hours and hours of work of all you others who have added to and
> > > discussed the Wikipedia entry.
> > >
> > > This is what community is for. It's all about consensus and
> > > support. How can we organize to support Meiser, and persuade this
> > > troll to leave it alone? Maybe we can turn the tables and exhaust
> > > Delongchamp instead, show him that more people believe in the fuller
> > > entry than in his destructive, narcissistic little stub. I'm game.
> > > What do you reckon?
> > >
> > > This is a problem on Wikipedia, individuals who use deletion to
> exert
> > > a kind of tyrannical power over entries. The rule that things must
> > > be from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be corrupted and abused
> to
> > > mean that everything that is not sourced must be stripped away.
> > >
> > > It's an incredible power, to delete everyone else's entries and just
> > > leave your own. It's a terrible abuse, I think, and achieves the
> > > opposite of what NPOV intended - one view instead of many. To
> > > justify it, Patrick Delongchamp needs to be backed by a community
> > > consensus, which he is not.
> > >
> > > I didn't know this was going on. I wish I had - it's the kind of
> > > thing that should be discussed here. The wikipedia entry always
> > > *used* to be discussed here, however painfully. Usually when
> > > someone was trying to exert too much individual influence.
> > >
> > > At the moment, it's one-on-one with Meiser and this idiot. Let's
> not
> > > be like the townsfolk in High Noon, leaving him to tackle it alone.
> > > Let's be like the slaves in Spartacus!
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
> > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
> > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/
> > >
> > >
> > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 09:10, Rupert wrote:
> > >
> > > That's Patrick Delongchamp of the old vlog
> > > cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com which stopped last June when he and
> > > his partner broke up. He used to post quite a lot on this Group, but
> > > nothing since September, so I guess he's given up interest in
> > > Vlogs... other than telling us what is a Vlog and what is not.
> > > If you want to have a reasoned discussion with him about the rights
> > > and wrongs of this, he published his email here as patnmax at gmail
> > >
> > > Rupert
> > >
> > > On 30 Apr 2007, at 03:03, Michael Verdi wrote:
> > >
> > > This user - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pdelongchamp -
> constantly
> > > fucks with the entry (deleting everything useful in it). It's
> > > pathetic. I
> > > can't believe Meiser still has the patience to try work on the
> > > article as
> > > his changes usually get deleted within hours.
> > >
> > > - Verdi
> > >
> > > On 4/29/07, Jan McLaughlin  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has rather been decimated.
> > > >
> > > > Wow.
> > > >
> > > > Anybody?
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Faux Press - better than real
> > > > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > > > http://twitter.com/fauxpress
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://michaelverdi.com
> > > http://spinxpress.com
> > > http://freevlog.org
> > > Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
> > >
> > > [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]
> > >
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
http://geekentertainment.tv


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Yeah, you're right.
It's the relentless wholesale deletion and reinstatement between  
Patrick and Mike that killed me, and made me stop assuming good faith.
But you're right.
And it *is* good that we're all looking at it again.


On 1 May 2007, at 03:46, Steve Watkins wrote:

I can see why its frustrating but I really love wikipedia, and I do
not agree that the burden of finding sources is on Patrick, Wikipedia
makes it very clear that the burden is on the person who wants to add
the information, and that such content runs the risk of being deleted
if this isnt done.

There is a balance to be struck, and the valuable time of people like
you and Patrick and many others are needed to make the thing work. it
should take a lot of time and effort and discussion and disagreement
and editing to create a good article. It sounds like it has been more
paintful & tit-for-tat in this case than most would like, Im not
claiming wikipedia to be perfect, but it seems a shame when it comes
to this.

I like the wikipedia rule 'assume good faith' - that certainly hasnt
happened on 'our side' of this discussion on this yahoo list, Im sorry
to say.

I also like the wikipedia rule 'ignore all rules' which it would be
most gracious of Patrick to consider, if only momentarily, in order
that people can get the house in order without feeling like you wil
pounce on every little detail straight away.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > Patrick,
 > Thanks for replying here.
 >
 > The thing that I'm not happy with - and that Mike Meiser's not happy
 > with - and Verdi, and Jan, and, and, and... is your destruction of
 > content that has been crafted by many people with considerable care.
 > You haven't just marked it as 'unverified', or even looked for the
 > sources that I've found - you've deleted it again and again, and
 > reconstructed the entry as your own.
 >
 > It *is* possible to mark something as unverified, and therefore
 > potentially untrustworthy without deleting it. In fact, in a niche
 > subject on which there has been very little main stream analysis, I
 > would say that this is your responsibility, otherwise you are
 > actually impeding the aggregation of knowledge on that subject.
 >
 > In a larger entry, where there is more attention, there's a more
 > efficient information market at work. An entry like this is a very
 > *inefficient* market, where even those actively involved in the
 > community are unaware of what's going on, and so needs to be handled
 > more sensitively to avoid undue influence from any one party.
 >
 > You say that 'Great things are already happening' as a result of this
 > discussion. This is in spite of - not because of - your efforts.
 > It's 1.30am. I am ill, and I have wasted my entire evening
 > reinstating what I consider valuable from previous versions (only
 > those from the last week, - never mind what must have been lost in
 > the past) and finding Mainstream Media sources for much of the
 > content that you've previously deleted. I dug up these sources
 > solely in order to try and bolster our argument that you should not
 > delete this useful information. I shouldn't have had to do this. It
 > upsets me that I have.
 >
 > How much easier would it have been if you had just gone out to find
 > those sources and put them in, rather than making me have to replace
 > and rewrite the whole piece before putting them in for you. How much
 > more valuable would the entry be if it had not lost the nuances of
 > discussion gathered along the way - and had not lost the support of
 > those who felt dispirited by your actions?
 >
 > The irony is that the MSM articles I've quoted as sources to appease
 > you, although they were in reputable journals, were mostly
 > entertainment/tech puff pieces. Whenever I read this kind of
 > material in daily newspapers about subjects I know intimately (like
 > videoblogging), I'm invariably struck by how they fail to fully grasp
 > the subject. They're taking an amateur snapshot and giving it a spin
 > - and even if well-intentioned, it does not get the level of rigour
 > demanded from news journalists, or those who specialize in a field,
 > which presumably is what the Wikipedia Rules uphold as the highest
 > level of verifiability.
 >
 > If you'd ever been in a job where you'd had feature journalists
 > calling up and asking you to do their job for them by telling them
 > everything you know about a subject so that they can write it down,
 > funk it up a little and give it to their editor, you'd probably have
 > a little more perspective on what's a verifiable source. I would say
 > that on an average day, I read more bullshit in the paper than I do
 > online.
 >
 > I know you'll come back and cite the Wikipedia Rules. I don't care.
 > As always, it's *how* you apply the rules that matters. Rules can be
 > over-extended, corrupted and abused to serve particular personal
 > interests, and must 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Patrick,
Thanks for replying here.

The thing that I'm not happy with - and that Mike Meiser's not happy  
with - and Verdi, and Jan, and, and, and... is your destruction of  
content that has been crafted by many people with considerable care.   
You haven't just marked it as 'unverified', or even looked for the  
sources that I've found - you've deleted it again and again, and  
reconstructed the entry as your own.

It *is* possible to mark something as unverified, and therefore  
potentially untrustworthy without deleting it.  In fact, in a niche  
subject on which there has been very little main stream analysis, I  
would say that this is your responsibility, otherwise you are  
actually impeding the aggregation of knowledge on that subject.

In a larger entry, where there is more attention, there's a more  
efficient information market at work.  An entry like this is a very  
*inefficient* market, where even those actively involved in the  
community are unaware of what's going on, and so needs to be handled  
more sensitively to avoid undue influence from any one party.

You say that 'Great things are already happening' as a result of this  
discussion.  This is in spite of - not because of - your efforts.   
It's 1.30am. I am ill, and I have wasted my entire evening  
reinstating what I consider valuable from previous versions (only  
those from the last week, - never mind what must have been lost in  
the past) and finding Mainstream Media sources for much of the  
content that you've previously deleted.  I dug up these sources  
solely in order to try and bolster our argument that you should not  
delete this useful information.  I shouldn't have had to do this.  It  
upsets me that I have.

How much easier would it have been if you had just gone out to find  
those sources and put them in, rather than making me have to replace  
and rewrite the whole piece before putting them in for you.  How much  
more valuable would the entry be if it had not lost the nuances of  
discussion gathered along the way - and had not lost the support of  
those who felt dispirited by your actions?

The irony is that the MSM articles I've quoted as sources to appease  
you, although they were in reputable journals, were mostly  
entertainment/tech puff pieces.  Whenever I read this kind of  
material in daily newspapers about subjects I know intimately (like  
videoblogging), I'm invariably struck by how they fail to fully grasp  
the subject.  They're taking an amateur snapshot and giving it a spin  
- and even if well-intentioned, it does not get the level of rigour  
demanded from news journalists, or those who specialize in a field,  
which presumably is what the Wikipedia Rules uphold as the highest  
level of verifiability.

If you'd ever been in a job where you'd had feature journalists  
calling up and asking you to do their job for them by telling them  
everything you know about a subject so that they can write it down,  
funk it up a little and give it to their editor, you'd probably have  
a little more perspective on what's a verifiable source.  I would say  
that on an average day, I read more bullshit in the paper than I do  
online.

I know you'll come back and cite the Wikipedia Rules.  I don't care.   
As always, it's *how* you apply the rules that matters.  Rules can be  
over-extended, corrupted and abused to serve particular personal  
interests, and must be applied judiciously.  What you have been doing  
has been perceived as selfish and destructive, masquerading as a  
service to the community and as adherence to the rulebook - in short,  
the behaviour of a mean-spirited civil servant.

Now I'm very tired, and I'm going to bed before I say something I'll  
regret.  All I'll say is, That's how it's been seen here, and I hope  
that that's enough to make you step back for a moment to consider  
things.

Please give the article a chance to breathe, and do not delete  
anything more until we have had a good long chance to review it among  
ourselves.  If you have issues with it, leave HTML comments in the  
text and notes on the discussion board.  We will attempt to meet your  
concerns - I will certainly give them due attention and reply.  Then,  
when you've given it some time, perhaps you can find two  
authoritative Wikipedia editors to help you assess what needs to be  
corrected according to the rules.

Thanks,

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/




On 1 May 2007, at 01:14, pdelongchamp wrote:

I'm just an Wikipedian. (a regular joe that likes wikipedia) You can
read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines (which are decided by
editors like you and me) in this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset

When I first started contributing to Wikipedia, one of the things that
I found most surprising and hard to accept was this quote at the top
of one of Wikipedia's core content policies:

"Th

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[David Meade]

limiting all reference to a new media medium to those coming from
mainstream media is insane and shows a near complete ignorance of the
topic trying to be described ... as such I suggest you stop editing
the page.





On 4/30/07, pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I seem to be the topic of conversation today.  I'm going to ignore the
> negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed
> interest in the article.  The great thing about wikipedia is everyone
> can edit it.  There’s one catch though, it’s an encyclopedia which
> means the content must be encyclopedic.
>
> In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into
> it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs)
>
> There’s already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael
> Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute.
>
> Patrick D
>
> p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice.
>
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jan McLaughlin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Has rather been decimated.
> >
> > Wow.
> >
> > Anybody?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > --
> > The Faux Press - better than real
> > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> > http://twitter.com/fauxpress
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
http://www.DavidMeade.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

Den 01.05.2007 kl. 00:08 skrev pdelongchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> In regards to the vlog article, this means that everything we put into
> it has to be from a reliable source like a news article. (i.e. not blogs)

You do realize that some blogs are written by people who are Certifiably  
Smart on a given topic (including but not limited to those with academic  
careers). Those blogs provide much better citations than a wire story  
written by the intern... as any good encyclopedia editor would know.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen]

Den 30.04.2007 kl. 23:28 skrev Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is
> edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources
> are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this
> Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
> So we have to find MSM sources for that?

Which is total BS. Using tv, newspapers to track language use made sense  
back when those were the only records of daily use, and it still makes  
sense in many cases today. However, for niche groups it makes little sense  
to rely on mainstream sources for tracking language use - *especially*  
since the members of the niche group publish so many words (spoken and  
written).

That's why Wikipedia-nazis who blindly follow policy without thinking are  
bad for the world.

-- 
Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
http://www.solitude.dk/ >

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Yeah.  It's the power of the internet that one person can cause so  
much trouble.
I am hesitant about invoking censorship from above.
The thing about this guy is that he's using the NPOV 'rules' of  
Wikipedia to do what he's doing, so there's a chance that they might  
even side with him, or make the whole thing worse by upping the aggro.
I still think it's better to take the community route first.
Rupert

On 30 Apr 2007, at 22:38, David Howell wrote:

Let me get this straight. One disgruntled ex-videoblogger is causing
all this strife over the wiki posting for this? One person??

Wow. Just...wow.

If the powers that be at Wikipedia arent willing to help in this, then
what's the point in banging heads against a wall?

It's the proverbial definition of insanity by doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results.

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is
 > edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources
 > are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this
 > Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
 > So we have to find MSM sources for that?
 > Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite
 > robust.
 > Rupert
 >
 > On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
 >
 > - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
 > - Edit it
 > - Copy the code
 > - Return to the original page
 > - Edit it
 > - Paste code
 >
 > :)
 >
 > XO,
 > Jan
 >
 > On 4/30/07, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > >
 > > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately
 > see that.
 > >
 > > cheryl
 > > www.hummingcrow.com
 > >
 > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" 
 > > wrote:
 > > >
 > > > wow he's already undone it all ...
 > > >
 > > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to
 > fight the
 > > > good fight) :-)
 > > >
 > > > - Dave
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Yahoo! Groups Links
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 > --
 > The Faux Press - better than real
 > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
 > http://twitter.com/fauxpress
 >
 > [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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is  
edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources  
are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this  
Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
So we have to find MSM sources for that?
Keep going.  We've only just begun.  We're going to have to be quite  
robust.
Rupert

On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote:

- Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
- Edit it
- Copy the code
- Return to the original page
- Edit it
- Paste code

:)

XO,
Jan

On 4/30/07, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately  
see that.
 >
 > cheryl
 > www.hummingcrow.com
 >
 > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 > wrote:
 > >
 > > wow he's already undone it all ...
 > >
 > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to  
fight the
 > > good fight) :-)
 > >
 > > - Dave
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 >
 >
 >

-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Jan McLaughlin]

   - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
   - Edit it
   - Copy the code
   - Return to the original page
   - Edit it
   - Paste code

:)

XO,
Jan


On 4/30/07, Cheryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately see that.
>
> cheryl
> www.hummingcrow.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > wow he's already undone it all ...
> >
> > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to fight the
> > good fight) :-)
> >
> > - Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Yeah, you and Jen are right about the Vtech stuff. thanks for taking  
it out.

It arose from me wanting to put in more about YouTube and the  
increasingly blurred perception of what vlogging is, but not knowing  
where to start.  The first line of the entry, I felt, excluded the  
idea and reality of vlogging as I imagine it's perceived by a lot of  
people and was limited to the point of being misleading to a  
newcomer.   Anyway, to be discussed there, not here.  Agreed that  
YouTube needs a lot more representation there.  Hopefully some happy  
Vlogging YouTuber will pitch in.

Rupert

On 30 Apr 2007, at 16:26, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage wrote:

I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again.

There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a  
friend
of mine. The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have  
parted,
that kind of love was the killin' kind.

Sorry, I wrote "there was a time" and Aerosmith just started spewing  
out all
over the place.

Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the  
past. I
don't think the collective "we" should be policing it to ensure it's
homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/ 
subtract
as we see fit, whenever we desire.

For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff. Not really
vlogging-related. Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as  
that was
an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter)
sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of
videoblogging by any means.

ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns  
with
the idea of an awards show for videoblogging. They're pretentious and
pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld  
said
earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4

pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they  
are in
passing. Pretty insular.

On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 > Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,
 > and we're the Crazy 88?
 >
 > Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you
 > can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see
 > are right, whoever makes them.
 >
 > I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -
 > particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting
 > point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented
 > there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.
 >
 > If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to
 > find somewhere else to play.
 >
 > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
 > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
 > but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
 > quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
 > of course.
 >
 > Rupert
 >
 > On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:
 >
 > > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about  
[videoblogging] Re:
 > > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
 > > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
 > > >
 > > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
 > >
 > > have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either  
becomes
 > > some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
 > > --
 > > cheers
 > > Adrian Miles
 > > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
 > > vogmae.net.au
 > >
 > >
 >
 >
 >
 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Yahoo! Groups Links
 >
 >
 >
 >

-- 
Adam Quirk
Wreck & Salvage
551.208.4644
Brooklyn, NY
http://wreckandsalvage.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage]

I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again.

There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a friend
of mine.  The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have parted,
that kind of love was the killin' kind.

Sorry, I wrote "there was a time" and Aerosmith just started spewing out all
over the place.

Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past.  I
don't think the collective "we" should be policing it to ensure it's
homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/subtract
as we see fit, whenever we desire.

For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff.  Not really
vlogging-related.  Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was
an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter)
sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of
videoblogging by any means.

ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with
the idea of an awards show for videoblogging.  They're pretentious and
pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said
earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4

pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are in
passing.  Pretty insular.

On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,
> and we're the Crazy 88?
>
> Bring it on.  Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you
> can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see
> are right, whoever makes them.
>
> I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -
> particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting
> point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented
> there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.
>
> If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to
> find somewhere else to play.
>
> I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
> reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
> but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
> quantities.  Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
> of course.
>
> Rupert
>
> On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:
>
> > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
> > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
> > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
> > >
> > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
> >
> > have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes
> > some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
> > --
> > cheers
> > Adrian Miles
> > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> > vogmae.net.au
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Adam Quirk
Wreck & Salvage
551.208.4644
Brooklyn, NY
http://wreckandsalvage.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage]

psss I added some YouTube info in the history timeline.  YouTube is the
biggest thing to happen to videoblogging ever ever ever ever.  There should
be a whole section on it, but a YouTuber should write it, not me.

On 4/30/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've signed up, and I'll try to watch it again.
>
> There was a time, when I was so broken hearted, love wasn't much of a
> friend of mine.  The tables have turned, yeah, cause me and them ways have
> parted, that kind of love was the killin' kind.
>
> Sorry, I wrote "there was a time" and Aerosmith just started spewing out
> all over the place.
>
> Anyhow, the entry has been the heart of some virile dispute in the past.
> I don't think the collective "we" should be policing it to ensure it's
> homogenous with this group, but I do think we should all edit add/subtract
> as we see fit, whenever we desire.
>
> For example, right now I'm going to remove the V tech stuff.  Not really
> vlogging-related.  Also going to remove the Vloggies reference, as that was
> an awards show (self-congratulatory bs is not covered in the charter)
> sponsored by a company, and not directly related to the definition of
> videoblogging by any means.
>
> ps I think Irina et al are good peoples, but I have serious concerns with
> the idea of an awards show for videoblogging.  They're pretentious and
> pointless, and belong on the wall of real estate offices, as Seinfeld said
> earlier this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_OqvUbBNA4
>
> pss There's only 2 mentions of YouTube in the entire entry, and they are
> in passing.  Pretty insular.
>
> On 4/30/07, Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,
> > and we're the Crazy 88?
> >
> > Bring it on.  Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you
> > can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see
> > are right, whoever makes them.
> >
> > I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -
> > particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting
> > point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented
> > there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.
> >
> > If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to
> > find somewhere else to play.
> >
> > I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
> > reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
> > but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
> > quantities.  Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
> > of course.
> >
> > Rupert
> >
> > On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:
> >
> > > around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
> > > Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
> > > >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
> > > >
> > > >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
> > >
> > > have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes
> > > some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
> > > --
> > > cheers
> > > Adrian Miles
> > > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> > > vogmae.net.au
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Adam Quirk
> Wreck & Salvage
> 551.208.4644
> Brooklyn, NY
> http://wreckandsalvage.com




-- 
Adam Quirk
Wreck & Salvage
551.208.4644
Brooklyn, NY
http://wreckandsalvage.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Jen Simmons]

On Apr 30, 2007, at 9:59 am, Rupert wrote:

> I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
> reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
> but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
> quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
> of course.
>
> Rupert




I think it's weird to read this addition, including one comment by  
one person, which a whole community immediately took issue with, to  
the Wikipedia entry as if its a trend and a thing to watch. Putting  
this in Wikipedia will only perpetuate an idea that I don't think 99%  
of us agree with or want to see perpetuated!

Please take this out.

Jen


Jen Simmons
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jensimmons.com
http://milkweedmediadesign.com
267-235-6967



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

[Rupert]

Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,  
and we're the Crazy 88?

Bring it on.  Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you  
can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see  
are right, whoever makes them.

I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -  
particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting  
point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented  
there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.

If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to  
find somewhere else to play.

I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with  
reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,  
but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large  
quantities.  Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,  
of course.

Rupert

On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:

> around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about [videoblogging] Re:
> Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
> >I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.
> >
> >Make a minor edit and sign up to "watch" the page.
>
> have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either becomes
> some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
> -- 
> cheers
> Adrian Miles
> this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
> vogmae.net.au
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]