[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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 wallythewarlord@ wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
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
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
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 wallythewarlord@ wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
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]
[videoblogging] Re:WP Theme question
Hi, Amani. Go to themes and then just click on the theme you want. It's really that simple. Oh, yeah - the theme should be saved in the \wp-content\themes folder. Good luck! Cheers, Carl Weaver Carl Weaver Photographer http://www.carlweaver.com http://www.camerasamurai.com http://www.dcmetrostories.com - Stories about the people, places and events in the DC Metro Area http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand
Re: [videoblogging] SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Where's the link back to the original blog site or video? On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: will law - vloggercon 2006.
wow i kinda like that On 4/30/07, schlomo rabinowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Have you checked out Viddler? http://viddler.com Video commenting is really elegantly done over there. Schlomo http://schlomolog.blogspot.com http://hatfactory.net http://winkshow.com On 4/30/07, nathank000 [EMAIL PROTECTED]nathank000%40fluidconsulting.com wrote: Mark - I'm looking for his details for you now- if I can find them I will let you know, last I heard he was working with these guys: http://www.hostcast.com/website/index.htm In the meantime this raises an interesting question. I attended tho 06 vloggercon and I was impressed with the ability to comment within a video. I am currently in the process of developing a service to serve video, but we scrapped the plans to implement this feature as we felt the screen size was too limiting, and most vloggers use the video in conjunction with a blogging tool such as word press - making the video commenting sort of redundant. The pros of having commenting within the context of the video is that the video would be able to accept comments no matter where it was embedded, and the comments would always be with it... thoughts? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, mark_raheja [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: couldn't easily track down will law's contact details, so i figure i'll just post this question here. at vloggercon 2006, will spoke about embedding [video] comments into a flash video file. will/group: what was the referenced app/software? can i review that demo again somewhere? please thanks! -M t: 416.451.3640 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: mark_raheja [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Irina enters Vlog Deathmatch!!! :D
http://VlogDeathmatch.com Vlog Deathmatch Music Video Challenge welcomes Irina Slutsky! :D Current Lineup: (eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] to join to the lineup) * Vergel Evans - Lx7.ca * Bill Cammack - ReelSolid.tv * Drew Olanoff - SCRIGGITY.com * Chuck Olsen - blogumentary.typepad.com * Adam Quirk - wreckandsalvage.com * Michael Verdi - michaelverdi.com * Bonny The Bui Brothers - NoodleScar.com * Nathan Miller - bicycle-sidewalk.com * Becca Havens - missbhavens.blogspot.com * Erik Nelson - wreckandsalvage.com * Irina Slutsky - geekentertainment.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sweet. Added. :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@ wrote: I'm in. On 4/27/07, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: The battle lines have been drawn in the vlogosphere. Use your vlog skills to make the ultimate music video the only way that matters -- by videoblogging. http://vlogdeathmatch.com/ Email BillC@ if you want to be involved! Current Lineup: Vergel Evans - http://Lx7.ca Bill Cammack - http://ReelSolid.tv Drew Olanoff - http://SCRIGGITY.com Chuck Olsen - http://blogumentary.typepad.com/ DEADLINE TO SUBMIT: May 14, 2007 -- Bill C. http://BillCammack.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] FireANT Reading Flash Video
IT's been happening for a few days now and I'm darned near the happiest girl in the world. Thanks, FireANT. Jan -- 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
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 URL: 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 URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ ). -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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 URL: 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 URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ ). -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RE: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
[videoblogging] Looking for a few good vloggers
Hello Vloggers! I haven't been on this list in a while but always impressed by all the action and dialog here. I am producing The 2007 NYC 48 Hour Film Project, this year and I would love to see some NYC Vloggers represenging. If you have not heard of this crazy filmmaking event, yet - where the heck have you been? The 48HFP, is in it's 6th year and is now in 50 cities in the US and 11 countries abroad. This year's event will take place June 15-17 and I am hosting a little gathering next week for those in the NYC area who would like to find out more. Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street. Hope some of you will make it. Here are more details! The 48 Hour Film Project is a wild and reckless weekend of filmmaking mania, where teams of renegade filmmakers create short films at break-neck speed, compete for prizes and a chance to participate in a national filmmaking showdown! Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street Meet your local producer (that's me!) and get the scoop from filmmakers who have participated in past competitions. Find out how to form a team or join a team in need . We need talented writers, Directors, DPs, actors, comedians, improvisers, class clowns, producers, editors, musicians, sound engineers, makeup artists, costume designers, friends, family, pets â¦you get the idea. Thousands of filmmakers all over the world have participated in the The 48 Hour Film Project. Professionals and amateurs alike love The 48 Hour Film Project for its focus on filmmakers' creativity and teamwork skills and emphasis on doing instead of talking. All films will be screened theatrically in NYC and compete for a host of awards given by industry professionals. Winners will be included in screenings around the country and be invited to compete in national filmmaking showdowns for great prizes. Last year's showdown winners received a new Panasonic HD Camera package! The sky is the limit as long as you can get the job done in 48 hours! Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm Paquito's Restaurant (outside in the patio!) 143 First Avenue at 9th street New York, NY 10003-2943 walking distance from F,L,6, N,R http://www.paquitosrestaurant.com google map http://maps.google.com/maps?q=143+First+Avenueie=UTF8oe=UTF-8client=firefox-aom=1z=16ll=40.729487,-73.984981spn=0.006586,0.014248iwloc=addr If you can't make this event but you still want to get involved join the Yahoo! Group: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/48hourfilm-newyork/ or find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2313798220 If you have any other questions feel free to email me directly at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! Mica Scalin New York Producer, The 48 Hour Film Project http://www.48hourfilm.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
[videoblogging] Re: Looking for a few good vloggers
A bunch of us are doing it down in DC. Look forward to seeing what NYC does. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, contactmica [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Vloggers! I haven't been on this list in a while but always impressed by all the action and dialog here. I am producing The 2007 NYC 48 Hour Film Project, this year and I would love to see some NYC Vloggers represenging. If you have not heard of this crazy filmmaking event, yet - where the heck have you been? The 48HFP, is in it's 6th year and is now in 50 cities in the US and 11 countries abroad. This year's event will take place June 15-17 and I am hosting a little gathering next week for those in the NYC area who would like to find out more. Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street. Hope some of you will make it. Here are more details! The 48 Hour Film Project is a wild and reckless weekend of filmmaking mania, where teams of renegade filmmakers create short films at break-neck speed, compete for prizes and a chance to participate in a national filmmaking showdown! Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street Meet your local producer (that's me!) and get the scoop from filmmakers who have participated in past competitions. Find out how to form a team or join a team in need . We need talented writers, Directors, DPs, actors, comedians, improvisers, class clowns, producers, editors, musicians, sound engineers, makeup artists, costume designers, friends, family, pets â¦you get the idea. Thousands of filmmakers all over the world have participated in the The 48 Hour Film Project. Professionals and amateurs alike love The 48 Hour Film Project for its focus on filmmakers' creativity and teamwork skills and emphasis on doing instead of talking. All films will be screened theatrically in NYC and compete for a host of awards given by industry professionals. Winners will be included in screenings around the country and be invited to compete in national filmmaking showdowns for great prizes. Last year's showdown winners received a new Panasonic HD Camera package! The sky is the limit as long as you can get the job done in 48 hours! Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm Paquito's Restaurant (outside in the patio!) 143 First Avenue at 9th street New York, NY 10003-2943 walking distance from F,L,6, N,R http://www.paquitosrestaurant.com google map http://maps.google.com/maps?q=143+First+Avenueie=UTF8oe=UTF-8client=firefox-aom=1z=16ll=40.729487,-73.984981spn=0.006586,0.014248iwloc=addr If you can't make this event but you still want to get involved join the Yahoo! Group: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/48hourfilm-newyork/ or find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2313798220 If you have any other questions feel free to email me directly at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks! Mica Scalin New York Producer, The 48 Hour Film Project http://www.48hourfilm.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
[videoblogging] Re: Looking for a few good vloggers
Awesome! I know that vlogger Rob Parrish of www.hoppervideo.net is a DC 48 Hour Film Project Alum. Any other vlogger/ 48HFP alum out there? --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, jonny goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A bunch of us are doing it down in DC. Look forward to seeing what NYC does. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, contactmica contactmica@ wrote: Hello Vloggers! I haven't been on this list in a while but always impressed by all the action and dialog here. I am producing The 2007 NYC 48 Hour Film Project, this year and I would love to see some NYC Vloggers represenging. If you have not heard of this crazy filmmaking event, yet - where the heck have you been? The 48HFP, is in it's 6th year and is now in 50 cities in the US and 11 countries abroad. This year's event will take place June 15-17 and I am hosting a little gathering next week for those in the NYC area who would like to find out more. Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street. Hope some of you will make it. Here are more details! The 48 Hour Film Project is a wild and reckless weekend of filmmaking mania, where teams of renegade filmmakers create short films at break-neck speed, compete for prizes and a chance to participate in a national filmmaking showdown! Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street Meet your local producer (that's me!) and get the scoop from filmmakers who have participated in past competitions. Find out how to form a team or join a team in need . We need talented writers, Directors, DPs, actors, comedians, improvisers, class clowns, producers, editors, musicians, sound engineers, makeup artists, costume designers, friends, family, pets â¦you get the idea. Thousands of filmmakers all over the world have participated in the The 48 Hour Film Project. Professionals and amateurs alike love The 48 Hour Film Project for its focus on filmmakers' creativity and teamwork skills and emphasis on doing instead of talking. All films will be screened theatrically in NYC and compete for a host of awards given by industry professionals. Winners will be included in screenings around the country and be invited to compete in national filmmaking showdowns for great prizes. Last year's showdown winners received a new Panasonic HD Camera package! The sky is the limit as long as you can get the job done in 48 hours! Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm Paquito's Restaurant (outside in the patio!) 143 First Avenue at 9th street New York, NY 10003-2943 walking distance from F,L,6, N,R http://www.paquitosrestaurant.com google map http://maps.google.com/maps?q=143+First+Avenueie=UTF8oe=UTF-8client=firefox-aom=1z=16ll=40.729487,-73.984981spn=0.006586,0.014248iwloc=addr If you can't make this event but you still want to get involved join the Yahoo! Group: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/48hourfilm-newyork/ or find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2313798220 If you have any other questions feel free to email me directly at: newyork@ Thanks! Mica Scalin New York Producer, The 48 Hour Film Project http://www.48hourfilm.com/
[videoblogging] Re: Pixelodeon attendees
Oh, Gena, if you got the chance to do this it would be beyond helpful. I don't have any trouble flying to, staying in and traveling around a city I've never been before all by my lonesome, but LA is the ONE US city where it'll be made more complicated by the fact that I do not know how to drive (yeah, yeah. I've heard it all before. Lessons begin in June.) If it weren't for taxis I'd never get anyplace. If I pick the wrong hotel I could end up $50 from anywhere I want to be. I would be willing to go in for a rental with someone who doesn't mind driving me with them everyplace. I call shotgun. Bekah (still hoping for vacation that weekend) -- http://www.missbhavens.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Gena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks - The Hollywood section has made great improvements over the years. It was tre-skeezy a few years ago. Now it is, well, it is better than what it was. There are places to stay and not stay. How can I say this? Some of the places are Hooker palaces and some are just cheap seedy joints with a lot of fleas. If I get a chance I can head over and check them out. If I can find a place like the Twin Palms in SF we score but L.A. and by extension Hollywood is a little different. AFI is not accessible at night by public transport. You can get kinda, sorta close but it is a heck of walk you really don't want to make at night. You want to rent a car or a van if a bunch is heading to town. DO NOT TAKE A TAXI! Frigging bandits of a fraternal order of (*^(^$% I really gotta get some sleep but I can put this on the agenda lists. of stuff to check out. Gena --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: I am about to book my flight and hotel for Pixelodeon. For those that are going, where are you staying? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
It's not my focus right now to argue and support the thesis that definitions are necessary to be effective. The one piece of information I can readily provide is on Dave Winer and the wikipedia definition of Podcasting. When Adam Curry anonymously deleted information, Dave Winer came out in front criticizing it: http://www.scripting.com/2005/06/11.html#peopleWithErasers This was picked up by other blogs and online news sites: http://tinyurl.com/27tzc8 http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-5980758-7.html http://tinyurl.com/2tb46o -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, random definitions and multiple competing definitions that don't acknowledge each other are not desirable - but there is considerable debate about the definition and whatever any of us feel it *should* be, it's constantly evolving. I doubt Winer looked for a definition before he posted - he surely would have found no support on Wikipedia for his view. But that's why I think that the debate needs to - in a concise and non-confrontational way - be acknowledged. So that you can say to someone like Winer (or Games, who just followed Winer's lead), Look - this has been discussed for a long time, and pretty much no one in all those discussions came up with a definition that even vaguely matches your Vlog it to NBC definition. On 1 May 2007, at 08:24, Enric wrote: My view is that it's the responsibility of a group to define itself and let that be clearly known to others. Now this doesn't mean that the definition is set in stone and stays static. It changes as the nature of the group and it's work changes and evolves. But to have random definitions, multiple, competing definitions and such is not democracy, but just makes it hard for others to understand and appreciate what the group is up to. It allows people like Dave Winer, http://tinyurl.com/37n9ld and Liz Games http://tinyurl.com/2bs35r to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog wallythewarlord@ wrote: (A half hour later...) Now I see the importance, I think. For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are at least important enough to document in some kind of historical record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful vandalism, at the least, but maybe also at the most. So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the definitive - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now - entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain your own history, is it? This is not to excuse the rampant illogical editing of the vlog wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already have happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe place! Respectfully, WtW --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, wallythewonderdog wallythewarlord@ wrote: OK, fwiw: I did not get past this gem: There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the content must be encyclopedic. Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky talkWhat did I miss? WtW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Tuesday May 1st/2nd FlashMeeting
The Tuesday May 1 FlashMeeting is starting at 5:00pm - 7:00pm PST USA, 8:00pm - 10:00pm EST USA, 1:00am - 3:00am GMT (April 25th). Enter through this link: http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/c04a3b-8259 You may also check the FlashMeeting page at flashmeeting.cirne.com for future and past Videoblogging FlashMeetings at: http://flashmeeting.cirne.com/index.php?title=Main_Page -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
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]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
The current definition is erroneous, A Video blog, sometimes shortened to vlog,[1][2][3] is a blog that comprises video footage Video footage is unedited video straight out of a camera shoot. A videoblog is video that is usually edited and rarely unedited video footage. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I think the problem is that net video is a larger container than a blog. A flash video container can contain all the capabilities of a blog and more indicated by the blip.tv Show Player and others. What Steve Garfield states makes sense as capabilities required by net video, but not the specific implementation in blog cms systems like Wordpress, TypePad, Blogger, etc. In other words, a videoblog is in reverse chronological order and often combine embedded video or a video link with supporting text, images, and other metadata. This should not be restricted to traditional blogging applications and include other implementations of the qualities in YouTube and other systems. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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: Pixelodeon attendees
If I get a chance I can head over and check them out. If I can find a place like the Twin Palms in SF we score but L.A. and by extension Hollywood is a little different. once we find an appropriate motel, we're planning on reserving a bunch of rooms. so shout out if you find the one that would be good. AFI is not accessible at night by public transport. You can get kinda, sorta close but it is a heck of walk you really don't want to make at night. You want to rent a car or a van if a bunch is heading to town. we can figure out car sharing in town. the more people who rent a carthe easier as well. jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Here is some communication between SplashCast and Todd Cochrane of Geek News Central: http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html#comments From Todd: I like both Marshall, and Alex but hey guys this is not good in a big way. When I click on the channel feed you have created it says Geek News Central Podcast by SplashCast Feed Agent -- SplashCast Channel this is a cheap way of trying to defer the issue you have here. NOT ACCEPTABLE Every subscriber they get to their new re-purposed feeds is a subscriber taken away from my original feed. SplashCast will use those subscriber numbers to value their business. Its one thing if I had opted in but they have created a directory of content producers all with hijacked feeds. Roxanne Here's the other link: http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where's the link back to the original blog site or video? On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian 808-384-5554 http://www.beachwalks.tv http://www.barefeetshop.com http://www.barefeetstudios.com http://www.inthetransition.com
[videoblogging] Threats and female vloggers
My mom sent me this article from the Washington Post today Sexual Threats Stifle Some Female Bloggers http://tinyurl.com/yrvgmb with the question did I think that vlogging was far behind. Have any female vloggers had threatening comments or responses? I have always been mindful of the balance of maintaining my privacy while still vlogging about my life (however sporadically) - but video is still a very personal and revealing medium Leslye.
[videoblogging] Is YouTube killing vlogging?
Just a thought. I notice that traffic on certain vlog sites has been going down within the past year. Do you think YouTube is to blame for this since people are getting more of their video content on these sites rather than actual vlogs?
Re: [videoblogging] Is YouTube killing vlogging?
I think the drop in traffic on my videoblog has to do with the quality of content. --Stephanie On 5/1/07, Becca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a thought. I notice that traffic on certain vlog sites has been going down within the past year. Do you think YouTube is to blame for this since people are getting more of their video content on these sites rather than actual vlogs? Yahoo! Groups Links -- Stephanie Bryant Author, Videoblogging for Dummies [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mortaine.com/
Re: [videoblogging] Threats and female vloggers
On 5/1/07, Leslye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with the question did I think that vlogging was far behind. Have any female vloggers had threatening comments or responses? Aside from the many, many people who are very concerned that my penis is not large enough, I have not had many threats or disparaging comments. Early in my text blog days, I had at least one vaguely threatening exchange with someone when I told him that I would not give him an invitation code to join LiveJournal. By the end of the exchange, he was making vague threats that I didn't know what he could do. Honestly, I find that vigorous, no-exception, outright blatant censorship of these kinds of asshats is the very best way to stop them cold in their tracks. When it comes to my blog, I AM QUEEN and nobody gets to make me feel like less. I have always been mindful of the balance of maintaining my privacy while still vlogging about my life (however sporadically) - but video is still a very personal and revealing medium I've stopped trying to keep my online identity (Mortaine) and my real-life identity (Stephanie Bryant) separate. It didn't work very well, and was just confusing when I'd need to use a personal email account to contact someone. In video, I just do what I want to do, so long as it respects the privacy of others around me. I don't vlog children without both their and their parents' consent, for example, even if they're in a public space where otherwise I could claim fair use. If the Internet were a real-world workplace, the kinds of things I've seen even professionals say to one another would get them fired. I just kind of file it away in my brain as note to self: don't ever enter into any transaction with this person. I frankly don't have time or bandwidth to work or play with people who treat others with so little respect. The bigger problem I have are actually vloggers I meet in meat-space. This may be a local phenomenon, but in the Bay Area, I've had to interact with more than one videoblogger who gave me the creeps, fortunately (but not really coincidentally) always in public events. Since I do presentations and speaking gigs on videoblogging now, I tend to attract more of the gum on your shoe kind of guys showing up to my events. Not much I can do about it, except rigorously maintain my personal boundaries and make sure there's always at least one or more trusted people attending the events with me. -- Stephanie Bryant Author, Videoblogging for Dummies [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mortaine.com/
[videoblogging] Jarvis/Rosenblum's scorced earth screeds.
At NAB Jarvis and Rosenblum teamed up against traditional TV news. At one point Rosenblum lofted Virginia Tech citizen journalist Jamal Albarghouti as the future of TV news. I spoke to Jamal today and his views are refreshingly more pragamatic. http://vergenewmedia.com/2007/05/01/scorched-earth-screeds-on-citizen-vs-professional-media/ Jim Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.vergenewmedia.com twitter: newmediajim aim: newmediajim skype: newmediajim 202-657-2137 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. Oh boy. Here we go again. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ahwfour_1027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Re: External Microphones?
We use the Sennheiser Wireless EQ100 G2 and have been very happy with it: http://www.barefeetshop.com/elec-172282-B0007IOYF2-EW100ENG_G2.html Very frustrating there is no sound monitor though on the Sanyo. :-( Rox On 4/21/07, Rob Danielson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2:44 PM + 4/21/07, Mark Schoneveld wrote: Thanks, Rob! No, the HD2 doesn't have manual gain control, unfortunately. It also doesn't have a headphone jack Ouch! The manufs have been crippling-out manual gain and mic jacks over the last few years,. and now headphone jacks! Its so silly and frustrating. A good mic and manual gain makes a _huge_ difference in recording,.. If I really wanted good sound with your set-up, I'd consider recording double system on a Hi-MD recorder. its quite easy to align the tracks with the audio wave forms in post and perfect sync with a digital disc recorder is no problem. I posted some info about this alternative a few months ago. Many folks lust after CF recorders, but Hi-MD is the best quality recorder one can get for less than $600 (or more pending tests on some newer models by Fostex) One can use Hi-MD with high quality, low noise noise mics too if you want to upgrade: http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-reports/HiMD/index.htm Good luck with your audio quests, Rob D. but I wish you could monitor in real time. Anyone else have any feedback for this particular camera? Also, maybe we should start a Gear List on the wiki to compare and contrast what hardware everyone is using, no? If the Sanyo Xacti HD2 has manual gain, that is quite a find these days. I'm not sure what type of recordings you have in mind, but the Rode VideoMic seem to be a good investment mic for a boom mic. The shock it comes with can be mounted on a pole too. A pair of small lavaliere electret mics is very flexible for recording locations in stereo and interviewing. You can make these for less than $20 or buy them for around $70. Audio gear gets so neglected in the tech gear blogs! Help! The naturerecordist list is a good resource to search about field audio recording: http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/naturerecordists/http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/naturerecordists/ Rob D. -- Rob Danielson Peck School of the Arts University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee http://www.uwm.edu/~type/audio-art-tech-gallery/ six, new media faculty positions: http://www.uwm.edu/~type/FilmDept/Hirings/base.htm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian 808-384-5554 http://www.beachwalks.tv http://www.barefeetshop.com http://www.barefeetstudios.com http://www.inthetransition.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
but many feeds have the cc license information embedded already ... for me, its included in my feed specifically so that *I* don't have to travel with my media and tag its license at every site in the world ... I've already included all that information with the syndicated media within the feed ... should I really have to sign-up/claim a feed just to re-assert the license information that is already there? On 5/1/07, ahwfour_1027 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June Yahoo! Groups Links -- http://www.DavidMeade.com
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Links back can be found in the player in the little blue ifor info buttons at the top and bottom left hand side. We are working on making the link more visible so there is clear link back for the producer. Reiterating what Marshall wrote at Todd Cochrane's blog: ...the RSS feed you see when you click RSS button is the feed for the channel aggregating all the individual feeds in it. We'll be adding the original feed URL to that screen asap when we get home to Portland. We are working on this. Thanks for the question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where's the link back to the original blog site or video? On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Hi, Roxanne -- We're working on the issues that Todd has addressed. Please see Marshall's comments on Todd's blog: http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html. We'll keep everyone posted on the developments underway to address the issues and concerns of the podcasting and vlogging communities. Thanks. Alex. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Roxanne Darling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is some communication between SplashCast and Todd Cochrane of Geek News Central: http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html#comments From Todd: I like both Marshall, and Alex but hey guys this is not good in a big way. When I click on the channel feed you have created it says Geek News Central Podcast by SplashCast Feed Agent -- SplashCast Channel this is a cheap way of trying to defer the issue you have here. NOT ACCEPTABLE Every subscriber they get to their new re-purposed feeds is a subscriber taken away from my original feed. SplashCast will use those subscriber numbers to value their business. Its one thing if I had opted in but they have created a directory of content producers all with hijacked feeds. Roxanne Here's the other link: http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where's the link back to the original blog site or video? On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com -- Roxanne Darling o ke kai means of the sea in hawaiian 808-384-5554 http://www.beachwalks.tv http://www.barefeetshop.com http://www.barefeetstudios.com http://www.inthetransition.com
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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: 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]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
maybe I'm missing it but all i see is this -- where exactly is the link back? On May 1, 2007, at 4:37 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: Links back can be found in the player in the little blue ifor info buttons at the top and bottom left hand side. We are working on making the link more visible so there is clear link back for the producer. Reiterating what Marshall wrote at Todd Cochrane's blog: ...the RSS feed you see when you click RSS button is the feed for the channel aggregating all the individual feeds in it. We'll be adding the original feed URL to that screen asap when we get home to Portland. We are working on this. Thanks for the question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where's the link back to the original blog site or video? On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com This email is: [ ] publishable [X] ask first [ ] private [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
but many feeds have the cc license information embedded already ... for me, its included in my feed specifically so that *I* don't have to travel with my media and tag its license at every site in the world ... I've already included all that information with the syndicated media within the feed ... should I really have to sign-up/claim a feed just to re-assert the license information that is already there? this is a perfect point we need to make clear. If you host with CC friendly services like Blip.tv, then your CC license is in your feed. It is machine readable and any commercial service like Splashcast can read it. I also encourage people to add a CC license inside the video as welllike a tag at the end...just to help spread awareness. Including your blog URL in the video is also smart since many sites won't like back to you. It's called marking your work. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_work Again, this is not like Hollywood crying that their content is being stolen. Creative Commons is just the logical way that we can all share our content, but still push the exposure many of us want. It also helps people find where things originate from to get better understanding of the source. Once my video go online..i expect anything to happen knowing the chaotic nature of the web. But we should expect commercial services to be better citizens. we want a healthy ecology. personally, I like CC Attribution. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ use my videos any way you want, but just give me a link back. Other creators will have their own needs. at least Alex from Splashcast is engaging with this group. +1 Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Hi, Roxanne -- We're working on the issues that Todd has addressed. Please see Marshall's comments on Todd's blog: http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html We'll keep everyone posted on the developments underway to address the issues and concerns of the podcasting and vlogging communities. There's a good conversation over at Todd's blog: http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007003.html I see Marshall from Splashcast basically said they would get on it. As Todd said: Like I said I have no issue with my show being listed in the directory, just get the RSS feeds pointed at my Feed and remove references to the hijacked feeds. Mike from Blip wrote a good best practices with the help of the Video Vertigo group: http://videovertigo.org/information/aggregation/ Give a clear linkback to the video permalink... and don't hijack the RSS feed. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
[videoblogging] SF Video Edit
Most people edit alone, now you have a choice. Inspired by SuperHappyDevHouse and SuperHappyVlogHouse is SF Video Edit. SF Video Edit is a monthly gathering of editors at a location. Like SuperHappyDevHouse it's unstructured (at least for now) where you can choose to: + Work on your edit by yourself with others around; or + Go over edits with others who are around; or + Watch someone else edit, give suggestions and get ideas; or + Learn how to build a blog to showcase your videos; or + Take a break, have a drink and talk with someone. Yes, beverages will be provided and a projector to screen your versions of your edit. But you'll need to bring your own computer editing system (or a friend who has one.) Sign up on upcoming.org: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/183629/ I just put up a wiki for SF Video Edit: http://www.sfvideoedit.org/index.php Not much there yet, but it'll fill in. If you're not in San Francisco and would like to start you're own, please do ;) -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
You've walked right into the middle of a real big issue. This isnt just about one or 2 technical issues with feeds being republished, for example even if you offered no feeds, some people would take issue with the core functionality of your embedded player. See unfortunately theres a common misconception about web 2 user generated content, and blogging, podcasting and videoblogging. There can be an assumption that these sorts of content creators have far more liberal ideas about how their content may be shown and redistributed on the net. But in reality, a lot of these creators are interested in giving more rights to the users of the content, the viewers. But the same technologies that enable such things as subscribing to stuff that is then automatically downloaded, also enables other sites services companies to do things with the content. This is the dangerous ground, made especially sensitive by the fact the majority of creators arent reaping in loads of money, so may be extra miffed if they see 3rd parties, services, others, exploiting their work for profit. Now I am usually one of the loud shouters who starts verbally abusing such services sites for taking liberties with peoples content. Theres been loads of ugly examples, some have made creators feel far more violated than others. Many specific technical remedies have formed part of the solution, most have come to comply a bit more with creators wishes but few have genuinely gone the whole distance. Sometimes it is because they would have no business if they complied fully, or acknowledged that their use of stuff might be a commercial use, and thus exclude to them a bulk of cc-non-commercial content out there. If you are unable to make specific feature changes to make everyone happy, then you may have to consider the opt-in model. Now you offer quite a few different services so it will be easy for me to trip-up in discussing this, but I get quite excited by some of the features you offer. I like the open web with mashups and people being able to make playlists and stuff. In an ideal world Id be happy if most creators hel that view, but I can see why this would not be an ideal world for many creators. One of the big problems is that the videos themselves are often not a self-contained representation of that persons web-publishing efforts. No matter how much we embrace various web gadgets, there is much resistance to the idea that a playlist someones work could be embedded in other sites. There are many good reasons why, but I remain conflicted because I love the elegant simplicity of say a podcast where the creator just wants it to spread any way it can. And services such as yours seem to rely on this stuff being accepted. But it isnt, people still want control, and it feels right for them to want control because of all the leechy ways people have found to exploit their work. You avoid my hate for now because I believe your service actually has potential added value for creators and viewers. In the web world of my dreams such things would be deeply normal. But we dont live in that world, and its even possible that the corporations will give up on DRM before the little creators give up the right to have some control over how their content is used. Probably they shouldnt give it all up, but it will not be a dead simple path to finding the right balance. Your feed issue is trivial to fix compared to the potential conflict between your embedded players playlist etc abilities and what peopl feel is accaptable. Its a shame, youd probably get no stick at all if your thang was a desktop app, aggregation software can get away with having adverts in the app and nobody seems to moan much, but doing the same thing on a webpage will draw instant flak. Now just like youtube tries to avoid having to take on all responsibility for potential misuse of its service, I dont think you can be fully held accountable for every single potential misuse of your service. But the way Ive read things so far, there arent really any safeguards at all, and the featurelist reads like a wishlist for leeches. You make it easy for users to do all sorts of legitimate things, but you rely on humans to honour any copyright creative commons isues with reuse of others video etc through your player. So you also make it easy for it to be misued. But then to be fair so does RSS in general, and that doesnt make everyone abandon or crap on RSS. It make people want to add their license terms to their feed, and so some do, but few services bother to read such information properly and do anything intelligent with it. Like I said, it will be a tricky balancing act. I guess you wont want to move to opt-in for all content, as that will decimate your content base. So you'll need to consider having a lengthy debate with the masses to learn more about where concensus lies, and preferably implement quite a few mechnaisms that reassure people and make your service less open to be used to
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Has wikipedia administration been petitioned to stop Pdelongchamp from vandelizing? If so, what was the result? -- Enric --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, 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: 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]
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Just to clarify that Im mostnly talking about their flash player thingy, the feed direcotry issues should be pretty much the standard, witht he suual fixes that everyone is already talking about. Im probably making things seem more complex anyway, I usually do, and maybe any flash player issues wil also be easily fixable with the same solutions - link back to creator, display of CC info etc. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've walked right into the middle of a real big issue. This isnt just about one or 2 technical issues with feeds being republished, for example even if you offered no feeds, some people would take issue with the core functionality of your embedded player. See unfortunately theres a common misconception about web 2 user generated content, and blogging, podcasting and videoblogging. There can be an assumption that these sorts of content creators have far more liberal ideas about how their content may be shown and redistributed on the net. But in reality, a lot of these creators are interested in giving more rights to the users of the content, the viewers. But the same technologies that enable such things as subscribing to stuff that is then automatically downloaded, also enables other sites services companies to do things with the content. This is the dangerous ground, made especially sensitive by the fact the majority of creators arent reaping in loads of money, so may be extra miffed if they see 3rd parties, services, others, exploiting their work for profit. Now I am usually one of the loud shouters who starts verbally abusing such services sites for taking liberties with peoples content. Theres been loads of ugly examples, some have made creators feel far more violated than others. Many specific technical remedies have formed part of the solution, most have come to comply a bit more with creators wishes but few have genuinely gone the whole distance. Sometimes it is because they would have no business if they complied fully, or acknowledged that their use of stuff might be a commercial use, and thus exclude to them a bulk of cc-non-commercial content out there. If you are unable to make specific feature changes to make everyone happy, then you may have to consider the opt-in model. Now you offer quite a few different services so it will be easy for me to trip-up in discussing this, but I get quite excited by some of the features you offer. I like the open web with mashups and people being able to make playlists and stuff. In an ideal world Id be happy if most creators hel that view, but I can see why this would not be an ideal world for many creators. One of the big problems is that the videos themselves are often not a self-contained representation of that persons web-publishing efforts. No matter how much we embrace various web gadgets, there is much resistance to the idea that a playlist someones work could be embedded in other sites. There are many good reasons why, but I remain conflicted because I love the elegant simplicity of say a podcast where the creator just wants it to spread any way it can. And services such as yours seem to rely on this stuff being accepted. But it isnt, people still want control, and it feels right for them to want control because of all the leechy ways people have found to exploit their work. You avoid my hate for now because I believe your service actually has potential added value for creators and viewers. In the web world of my dreams such things would be deeply normal. But we dont live in that world, and its even possible that the corporations will give up on DRM before the little creators give up the right to have some control over how their content is used. Probably they shouldnt give it all up, but it will not be a dead simple path to finding the right balance. Your feed issue is trivial to fix compared to the potential conflict between your embedded players playlist etc abilities and what peopl feel is accaptable. Its a shame, youd probably get no stick at all if your thang was a desktop app, aggregation software can get away with having adverts in the app and nobody seems to moan much, but doing the same thing on a webpage will draw instant flak. Now just like youtube tries to avoid having to take on all responsibility for potential misuse of its service, I dont think you can be fully held accountable for every single potential misuse of your service. But the way Ive read things so far, there arent really any safeguards at all, and the featurelist reads like a wishlist for leeches. You make it easy for users to do all sorts of legitimate things, but you rely on humans to honour any copyright creative commons isues with reuse of others video etc through your player. So you also make it easy for it to be misued. But then to be fair so does RSS in general, and that doesnt make
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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]michael%40michaelverdi.com 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 jannie.jan%40gmail.com 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]
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi --- 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]michael%40michaelverdi.com 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 jannie.jan%40gmail.com 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]
Re: [videoblogging] SF Video Edit
Inspired by SuperHappyDevHouse and SuperHappyVlogHouse is SF Video Edit. SF Video Edit is a monthly gathering of editors at a location. Like SuperHappyDevHouse it's unstructured (at least for now) where you can choose to: + Work on your edit by yourself with others around; or + Go over edits with others who are around; or + Watch someone else edit, give suggestions and get ideas; or + Learn how to build a blog to showcase your videos; or + Take a break, have a drink and talk with someone. Sign up on upcoming.org: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/183629/ yeahas enric saidwe had a really good time at SuperhapyVlogHouse in SF last month. Now that putting video on the web is at least a known quantitywe want to now focus on content and technique. I think many of people still struggle with storytelling, knowing how to use their edit programs appropriately, learning techniques that make all the difference. Also, people also get busy and put off editing projects...so meeting up to edit gives an excuse to work. our goal is to do this once a month in SF so screenings can also happen. Brett from http://opensourcecinema.org/ is donating some funds to help buy drinks for SF. There's some money leftover if anyone else holds an event in another place. Just email me offlist. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. hey Patrick-- thanks for replying. here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing process. --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? --also, from your user history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdelongchamp), it looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the subject of videoblogging. I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a traditional newspaper that may have to one of 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? jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Is YouTube killing vlogging?
Becca, I definately think so. I went to a lot of trouble getting up Wordpress to a server, learn iMovie, upload what I think is a nice vlog on the Philadelphia Mummers, only to have You Tube come out a month before. YT is so easy, anyone with some sort of video device can throw it up. And I do mean throwup as in video vomit. John www.jchtv.com --- Becca [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a thought. I notice that traffic on certain vlog sites has been going down within the past year. Do you think YouTube is to blame for this since people are getting more of their video content on these sites rather than actual vlogs? Jimmy CraicHead TVVideo Podcast about Sailing, Travel, Cocktails and other good Craic!http://www.jchtv.com/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
[videoblogging] Flashmeeting in Progress
http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/flashmeeting.php?pwd=c04a3b-8259 I wanna ask about money and licensing distributed works. Jan -- 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] SF Video Edit
This, this is brilliant. Know I could learn a lot watching someone edit on FCE. Wow. Jan On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Inspired by SuperHappyDevHouse and SuperHappyVlogHouse is SF Video Edit. SF Video Edit is a monthly gathering of editors at a location. Like SuperHappyDevHouse it's unstructured (at least for now) where you can choose to: + Work on your edit by yourself with others around; or + Go over edits with others who are around; or + Watch someone else edit, give suggestions and get ideas; or + Learn how to build a blog to showcase your videos; or + Take a break, have a drink and talk with someone. Sign up on upcoming.org: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/183629/ yeahas enric saidwe had a really good time at SuperhapyVlogHouse in SF last month. Now that putting video on the web is at least a known quantitywe want to now focus on content and technique. I think many of people still struggle with storytelling, knowing how to use their edit programs appropriately, learning techniques that make all the difference. Also, people also get busy and put off editing projects...so meeting up to edit gives an excuse to work. our goal is to do this once a month in SF so screenings can also happen. Brett from http://opensourcecinema.org/ is donating some funds to help buy drinks for SF. There's some money leftover if anyone else holds an event in another place. Just email me offlist. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June 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] A game changer?
It shows there is at least a granular understanding of the issue however... I'll believe it when I see it. Adobe is a big player in this field... but people send out PR on B.S. like this all the time. People and companies like Apple who say... we're going to release this product that's going to change the game and can deliver on it are few and far between. This simply sounds like anotehr B.S. attempt at DRM. To create a downloadable proprietary format and player that will work on thousands of pieces of hardware is a pipe dream... it's a contradiction in itself. Adobe should stick to problems it can solve. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 4/16/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Game Changer? - Yes. On 4/16/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Check this out, interesting article http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070416/tc_nm/adobe_player_dc;_ylt=AqF8l.m rZ2KqopCFainOFEjMWM0F SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Adobe Systems Inc. unveiled on Sunday video- player software that lets consumers play back video online or offline, a move that could help reshape an acrimonious debate over video-sharing. Adobe Video Player builds on the leading design software maker's Flash player, already the dominant technology used to stream video online by sites ranging from YouTube to MySpace to MSN to Yahoo Video. The video player is due to become available to consumers over the next several months, Adobe officials said. Analysts hailed the new Adobe Video player as a technology breakthrough by allowing consumers to download and carry video from the Web to computers to mobile phones, while ensuring programmers can deliver advertising and track video usage. Rival video players such as Windows Media Player from Microsoft Corp., QuickTime from Apple Inc. and RealPlayer from RealNetworks Inc. run on a range of devices but have none of the offline tracking features. Adobe has created the first way for media companies to release video content, secure in the knowledge that advertising goes with it, Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said. Control is something that media companies absolutely get high on, he said. Fearful of piracy, media companies have been slow to release much of their TV, film and video programming onto the Web. Last month, media conglomerate Viacom Inc. filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google Inc. and its YouTube video-sharing site for failing to thwart the piracy of MTV, South Park and other popular Viacom television shows. At root, the debate over digital piracy has been a case of digital tools outstripping the power of copyright owners to decide who watches what while also ensuring they can get paid. The Adobe Video Player could ease such tensions by giving consumers a convenient way to watch, and even, in certain instances, to edit, video content, while assuring media owners they can retain ultimate control over where the video ends up. Consumers think: I bought my media, I own it, I should get to carry it with me from device to device. Adobe's video player works the way consumers think about media by giving them the freedom to carry it with them, McQuivey said. Adobe officials said they have relied on a set of familiar, openly accessible technologies to create Adobe Video Player and will distribute the software, for free, using the same viral strategy that made Adobe's Flash and Acrobat into the most popular ways to view video or read documents, respectively. It relies on open standards for syndicating content, synchronizing multimedia and advertising tracking. Consumers disturbed that media owners can track their consumption habits have the option of blocking such tracking. And because Adobe is already a primary supplier of the prior generation of video watching and editing tools, the company may avoid the classic chicken and egg problem that delays adoption of most new Web technologies: Will consumers use the video player before media owners embrace it? Adobe Media Player offers higher-quality Flash video, full-screen playback and the ability to be disconnected from the Web -- on airplanes, for example. Viewers also can search for shows or share their ratings of shows with other viewers and automatically download new episodes of shows. Mark Randall, chief strategist for dynamic media, said Adobe is working with a wide range of media companies, and plans to announce partnership deals next month. The Adobe Video Player offers a way for established media companies to securely offer ad-supported video but also independent video producers, podcasters and home movie makers. Adobe, of San Jose, California, timed the announcement for the start of the National Association of Broadcasters show, a major industry event, now underway in Las Vegas. Will this help or hurt? Heath http://batmangeek.com [Non-text
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
--when you say the need to cite contentmust 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, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people contribute encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and myself. For the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more happening to the article. Let's keep improving it. I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after we've done some work on it. hey Patrick-- thanks for replying. here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing process. --when you say the need to cite contentmust the sources be traditional media? or can they come from blogs? --also,
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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. just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? 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. http://cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com/ I remember working with you at Vloggercon. you really helped randy and jan hold down the audio and video. 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. but if a newspaper says that your opinion is right, then it belongs 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. so what youre saying iswe let newspapers define what videoblogging is because they are reliable sources. Is that where we are in the Wikipedia article? we go out and find quotes in the media...and build http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog? are industry blogs okay? Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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 http://batmangeek.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust 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, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? 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
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
FUCK (you missed one ;) On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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/me4vhttp://tinyurl.com/me4vs Recent Activity - 5 New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGQ3bGtoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyODA1NjY2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTU1NDAyMQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZm02dDd1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyODA1NjY2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTU1NDAyMQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNzgwNzI0NTM- SPONSORED LINKS - Individualhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaWZnZGtpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individualw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=yXas2gOCx2ryEsBih067Ww - Individual counselinghttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbGtpY29yBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+counselingw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=yO-t9-v0D93UF70blMCxpA - Individual health planhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZThkdGN1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+health+planw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=wXFwbY_BAxoq2bv9JMIluw - Individual income taxhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdmdqYWY4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzQEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+income+taxw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=U0NxPlZ6uri1ECJoeJIcvA - Individual income tax returnhttp://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJkczg2dGR1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzUEZ3JwSWQDMTI4MDU2NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1NTU0MDIxBHNlYwNzbG1vZARzdGltZQMxMTc4MDcyNDUz?t=msk=Individual+income+tax+returnw1=Individualw2=Individual+counselingw3=Individual+health+planw4=Individual+income+taxw5=Individual+income+tax+returnc=5s=132g=2.sig=Jc5hlOlOftCAmUIk9lqdYg Yahoo! HotJobs What are you worth?http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12i21l2np/M=493064.9803220.10510213.8674578/D=groups/S=1705554021:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1178079653/A=3848545/R=0/SIG=111mtgddu/*http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/salary+ Find jobs that match your worth Y! GeoCities Free Blogginghttp://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12id3oq77/M=493064.9803219.10510212.8674578/D=groups/S=1705554021:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1178079653/A=3848539/R=0/SIG=12ban20bv/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=42416/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/y360/?v=f Share your views with the world. Ads on Yahoo! Learn more now.http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12i099q67/M=493064.9803227.10510220.8674578/D=groups/S=1705554021:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1178079653/A=3848643/R=0/SIG=131q47hek/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2005cmp=Yahooctv=Groups4s=Ys2=s3=b=50 Reach customers searching for you. . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm sorry Verdi. It's criminal, isn't it. Fuck. Ron Watson Pawsitive Vybe 11659 Berrigan Ave Cedar Springs, MI 49319 http://pawsitivevybe.com Personal Contact: 616.802.8923 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On May 1, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Michael Verdi 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: dvd 2 ipod
HI everyone, At the moment I am looking for freeware that will allow me to convert dvd files into ipod format. I own the movies (of course) and would like to learn how to convert them into ipod format. Does anyone know of some good free ware? I have tried: - DVD2ipod (linux GUI) it did not work. Or I just could not work it out after 4 tries. - M2solution converter (trial version) it worked but I get this really annoying banner right in the middle of my ipod video!! - DVDx2.3, but it compresses chapter per chapter, not the whole file. - Handbrake, also chapter per chapter. Any idea for a suitable software? Cheers, Nicolas Gromik Nicolas Tohoku University Sendai, Japan fax=81-22-7647 http://www.filmedworld.com/page.php?3 http://nag-productions.blip.tv/? http://sendai-city-tourism-tohoku-university.blip.tv/ http://eflresources.wikispaces.com/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [videoblogging] A game changer?
the game changing will be in the continual and vast usage of the flv format which wont just be for online video playback. On 5/1/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It shows there is at least a granular understanding of the issue however... I'll believe it when I see it. Adobe is a big player in this field... but people send out PR on B.S. like this all the time. People and companies like Apple who say... we're going to release this product that's going to change the game and can deliver on it are few and far between. This simply sounds like anotehr B.S. attempt at DRM. To create a downloadable proprietary format and player that will work on thousands of pieces of hardware is a pipe dream... it's a contradiction in itself. Adobe should stick to problems it can solve. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 4/16/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] sulleleven%40gmail.com wrote: Game Changer? - Yes. On 4/16/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Check this out, interesting article http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070416/tc_nm/adobe_player_dc;_ylt=AqF8l.m rZ2KqopCFainOFEjMWM0F SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Adobe Systems Inc. unveiled on Sunday video- player software that lets consumers play back video online or offline, a move that could help reshape an acrimonious debate over video-sharing. Adobe Video Player builds on the leading design software maker's Flash player, already the dominant technology used to stream video online by sites ranging from YouTube to MySpace to MSN to Yahoo Video. The video player is due to become available to consumers over the next several months, Adobe officials said. Analysts hailed the new Adobe Video player as a technology breakthrough by allowing consumers to download and carry video from the Web to computers to mobile phones, while ensuring programmers can deliver advertising and track video usage. Rival video players such as Windows Media Player from Microsoft Corp., QuickTime from Apple Inc. and RealPlayer from RealNetworks Inc. run on a range of devices but have none of the offline tracking features. Adobe has created the first way for media companies to release video content, secure in the knowledge that advertising goes with it, Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said. Control is something that media companies absolutely get high on, he said. Fearful of piracy, media companies have been slow to release much of their TV, film and video programming onto the Web. Last month, media conglomerate Viacom Inc. filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google Inc. and its YouTube video-sharing site for failing to thwart the piracy of MTV, South Park and other popular Viacom television shows. At root, the debate over digital piracy has been a case of digital tools outstripping the power of copyright owners to decide who watches what while also ensuring they can get paid. The Adobe Video Player could ease such tensions by giving consumers a convenient way to watch, and even, in certain instances, to edit, video content, while assuring media owners they can retain ultimate control over where the video ends up. Consumers think: I bought my media, I own it, I should get to carry it with me from device to device. Adobe's video player works the way consumers think about media by giving them the freedom to carry it with them, McQuivey said. Adobe officials said they have relied on a set of familiar, openly accessible technologies to create Adobe Video Player and will distribute the software, for free, using the same viral strategy that made Adobe's Flash and Acrobat into the most popular ways to view video or read documents, respectively. It relies on open standards for syndicating content, synchronizing multimedia and advertising tracking. Consumers disturbed that media owners can track their consumption habits have the option of blocking such tracking. And because Adobe is already a primary supplier of the prior generation of video watching and editing tools, the company may avoid the classic chicken and egg problem that delays adoption of most new Web technologies: Will consumers use the video player before media owners embrace it? Adobe Media Player offers higher-quality Flash video, full-screen playback and the ability to be disconnected from the Web -- on airplanes, for example. Viewers also can search for shows or share their ratings of shows with other viewers and automatically download new episodes of shows. Mark Randall, chief strategist for dynamic media, said Adobe is working with a wide range of media companies, and plans to announce partnership deals next month. The Adobe Video Player offers a way for established media companies to securely offer ad-supported video but also
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Reliable sources: Judith Miller Tom Friedman Tim Russert What a fucking joke. This is the stupidest conversation ever. I'd like to see the resumes of the wikipedia leadership. I wonder if it has been co-opted by corporatists. Wouldn't suprise me in the least. Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On May 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Patrick Delongchamp wrote: --when you say the need to cite contentmust 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, you can make an article about anything. What people may not realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content and hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many more than are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree with it at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't exactly a notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot more and it's definitely a hobby of mine now. So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have to go with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions. This is what I assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by group members earlier. Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal attacks don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic content. Since the yahoo group discussion began,
Re: [videoblogging] A game changer?
and i'm hoping that more services will open up their flvs like blip does... and remove the need for flv url decryption etc. let flv move around. encourage it. dont just rely on swf wrappers to control the video. adobe media player is a step in this direction. its a good thing. the lite drm features, to me, are a side note. sull On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the game changing will be in the continual and vast usage of the flv format which wont just be for online video playback. On 5/1/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It shows there is at least a granular understanding of the issue however... I'll believe it when I see it. Adobe is a big player in this field... but people send out PR on B.S. like this all the time. People and companies like Apple who say... we're going to release this product that's going to change the game and can deliver on it are few and far between. This simply sounds like anotehr B.S. attempt at DRM. To create a downloadable proprietary format and player that will work on thousands of pieces of hardware is a pipe dream... it's a contradiction in itself. Adobe should stick to problems it can solve. -Mike mmeiser.com/blog mefeedia.com On 4/16/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] sulleleven%40gmail.com wrote: Game Changer? - Yes. On 4/16/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] heathparks%40msn.com wrote: Check this out, interesting article http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070416/tc_nm/adobe_player_dc;_ylt=AqF8l.m rZ2KqopCFainOFEjMWM0F SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Adobe Systems Inc. unveiled on Sunday video- player software that lets consumers play back video online or offline, a move that could help reshape an acrimonious debate over video-sharing. Adobe Video Player builds on the leading design software maker's Flash player, already the dominant technology used to stream video online by sites ranging from YouTube to MySpace to MSN to Yahoo Video. The video player is due to become available to consumers over the next several months, Adobe officials said. Analysts hailed the new Adobe Video player as a technology breakthrough by allowing consumers to download and carry video from the Web to computers to mobile phones, while ensuring programmers can deliver advertising and track video usage. Rival video players such as Windows Media Player from Microsoft Corp., QuickTime from Apple Inc. and RealPlayer from RealNetworks Inc. run on a range of devices but have none of the offline tracking features. Adobe has created the first way for media companies to release video content, secure in the knowledge that advertising goes with it, Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said. Control is something that media companies absolutely get high on, he said. Fearful of piracy, media companies have been slow to release much of their TV, film and video programming onto the Web. Last month, media conglomerate Viacom Inc. filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Google Inc. and its YouTube video-sharing site for failing to thwart the piracy of MTV, South Park and other popular Viacom television shows. At root, the debate over digital piracy has been a case of digital tools outstripping the power of copyright owners to decide who watches what while also ensuring they can get paid. The Adobe Video Player could ease such tensions by giving consumers a convenient way to watch, and even, in certain instances, to edit, video content, while assuring media owners they can retain ultimate control over where the video ends up. Consumers think: I bought my media, I own it, I should get to carry it with me from device to device. Adobe's video player works the way consumers think about media by giving them the freedom to carry it with them, McQuivey said. Adobe officials said they have relied on a set of familiar, openly accessible technologies to create Adobe Video Player and will distribute the software, for free, using the same viral strategy that made Adobe's Flash and Acrobat into the most popular ways to view video or read documents, respectively. It relies on open standards for syndicating content, synchronizing multimedia and advertising tracking. Consumers disturbed that media owners can track their consumption habits have the option of blocking such tracking. And because Adobe is already a primary supplier of the prior generation of video watching and editing tools, the company may avoid the classic chicken and egg problem that delays adoption of most new Web technologies: Will consumers use the video player before media owners embrace it? Adobe Media Player offers higher-quality Flash video, full-screen playback and the ability to be
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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 videoblogging%40yahoogroups.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] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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. 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] sulleleven%40gmail.com 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]michael%40michaelverdi.com michael%40michaelverdi.com 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 jannie.jan%40gmail.com jannie.jan%40gmail.com 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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Threats and female vloggers
I think that it is a matter of time. I am getting hit with a lot of male enhancement spam and some perv in the UK who post crap in the comments. I give them the boot as soon as I see the posts. I also know that certain type of women bloggers get a vicious amount of attacks in their comments. If you write about feminism, sexuality or politics - no matter what your party you tend to attract lower common denominator crude. I think we can decide what we will and will not accept in our blogs. We also need to keep our safety in mind. It is a balance. But women vloggers and bloggers are here to stay. Gena http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com http://pcclibtech.blogspot.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Leslye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My mom sent me this article from the Washington Post today Sexual Threats Stifle Some Female Bloggers http://tinyurl.com/yrvgmb with the question did I think that vlogging was far behind. Have any female vloggers had threatening comments or responses? I have always been mindful of the balance of maintaining my privacy while still vlogging about my life (however sporadically) - but video is still a very personal and revealing medium Leslye.
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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]michael%40michaelverdi.com 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
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
Mike Berkley posted more explanation about what we are doing over at the SplashCast blog: http://splashcastmedia.com/addressing-feedback-on-mypodcastnetwork Thanks. Alex. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. Oh boy. Here we go again. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ahwfour_1027 ahwfour_1027@ wrote: Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Jay, while I'm listening intently on this... I find it very ironic Pat has not cited or quoted from wikipedia on what wikipedia considers good sources and original research. It occurs to me that he's adlibing his own personal idea of what proper sources should and should not be. I would have no problem with this discussion, would indeed enjoy it, if it weren't the criteria by which he's deleted thousands of people's contributions to the videoblogging article. Pat, I would challenge you since it's the absolute basis of your argument to not give your opinion but to base your argument upon what wikipedia says. -Mike On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? 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. http://cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com/ I remember working with you at Vloggercon. you really helped randy and jan hold down the audio and video. 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. but if a newspaper says that your opinion is right, then it belongs 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. so what youre saying iswe let newspapers define what videoblogging is because they are reliable sources. Is that where we are in the Wikipedia article? we go out and find quotes in the media...and build http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog? are industry blogs okay? Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
I stilll have NO IDEA how splashcast videos provide links back... B) how we provide link backs to podcast owners (we do this for video, but not yet audio), and no idea. On May 1, 2007, at 11:30 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: Mike Berkley posted more explanation about what we are doing over at the SplashCast blog: http://splashcastmedia.com/addressing-feedback-on-mypodcastnetwork Thanks. Alex. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. Oh boy. Here we go again. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ahwfour_1027 ahwfour_1027@ wrote: Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com This email is: [ ] publishable [X] ask first [ ] private
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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_blogoldid=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 to cite contentmust the
[videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
So you dont see a link when you click the little blue i icon on this video? http://web.splashcast.net/catalog/channel_details.aspx?code=ZPKK9922BJ Unfortunately when I click the link, it tries to open it in a popup which firefox is set to block - not a good implementation. Maybe this feature doesnt work for all videos? Or maybe its browser issue, what you using? Splashcast's addressing of the issues seems like a start but I doubt its quite enough, going by what they've said so far. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I stilll have NO IDEA how splashcast videos provide links back... B) how we provide link backs to podcast owners (we do this for video, but not yet audio), and no idea. On May 1, 2007, at 11:30 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: Mike Berkley posted more explanation about what we are doing over at the SplashCast blog: http://splashcastmedia.com/addressing-feedback-on-mypodcastnetwork Thanks. Alex. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. Oh boy. Here we go again. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ahwfour_1027 ahwfour_1027@ wrote: Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com This email is: [ ] publishable [X] ask first [ ] private
Re: [videoblogging] Re: SplashCast -- Letter to Podcasting/Vlogging Communities
I was clicking on the upper left hand i which did not provide a link back. I didn't even see the lower left hand i. It should be included in the the top menu with all the other links... On May 2, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: So you dont see a link when you click the little blue i icon on this video? http://web.splashcast.net/catalog/channel_details.aspx?code=ZPKK9922BJ Unfortunately when I click the link, it tries to open it in a popup which firefox is set to block - not a good implementation. Maybe this feature doesnt work for all videos? Or maybe its browser issue, what you using? Splashcast's addressing of the issues seems like a start but I doubt its quite enough, going by what they've said so far. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I stilll have NO IDEA how splashcast videos provide links back... B) how we provide link backs to podcast owners (we do this for video, but not yet audio), and no idea. On May 1, 2007, at 11:30 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote: Mike Berkley posted more explanation about what we are doing over at the SplashCast blog: http://splashcastmedia.com/addressing-feedback-on-mypodcastnetwork Thanks. Alex. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. Oh boy. Here we go again. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, ahwfour_1027 ahwfour_1027@ wrote: Jay -- Thanks for the question about Creative Commons, a licensing structure that I believe passionately about and an important issue for SplashCast to address. In our next development phase, starting immediately, SplashCast will offer the ability for podcasters/vloggers to claim their feed. By claiming their feed, we are exploring how the producer will have the ability to add Creative Commons as the licensing for the work. Additionally, SplashCast is in development as a network and the model for how we sustain the service econmomically is one that we are discussing in the broader market. But how to sustain the business? This will largely depend on the channel network that grows from SplashCast. How that channel network develops will depend on the relationshps we build with media producers and how they see the platform as a mechanism for helping sustain their livelihood. CC lciensing is an important part of that equation. Again, thanks for your question. Alex Williams SplashCast --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: SplashCast is launching a new feature to its product this week called MyPodcastNetwork http://www.splashcastmedia.com/mypodcastnetwork that allows the video or audio enclosures in any RSS feed to be displayed within a SplashCast player on any web page. This will make every page on the web an avenue for live distribution of multiple shows, meaning that any web page could display the most recent episodes of any audio or video program. Additionally, the new feature allows people make their own personal channels that they can display on their personal start page or aggregator of choice. The result is a new way for podcasters to distribute their shows. It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with podcasters and vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or video programs. We have created a Podcast FAQ http://splashcastmedia.com/podcasterfaq/ , which we hope will answer the questions you may have about how the SplashCast service will work. We have several new features that will be added, which are addressed in the FAQ. hey alex-- a big question i dont see on your FAQ is your view of Creative Commons. how will you help your users respect these licenses that many videobloggers are putting into their videos? If I understand Splashcast correctly...here would be my worry. a user goes to your site and creates a channel. they choose a bunch of videos that they didnt make. This channel can then be displayed on their site as a Streaming video widget. The user then puts advertising all over and around the videos. No money, attribution, or anything is shared with the original creators even if there are clear CC licenses defining the use. I know Magnify.net is already doing thisand seems to cut the creators out of the equation. how will Splashcast handle this situation, if ive described it correctly. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June Yahoo! Groups Links -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com This email is: [ ] publishable [X] ask first [ ] private Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
To get right down to the issue of sources wikipedia states. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. There's also some good stuff here. tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/2rdnhq complete url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Forum_for_Encyclopedic_Standards#Proposed_guidelines_and_strategies And here: tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/kp8fp original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources I cannot stress enough that these policies fall within reason of the editing policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Wether something is right or wrong if it is reasonably determined to be added in good faith then there's no excuse for outright deletion wether it needs to be sourced or not. In fact, automatically deleteing content immediately gives noone else a chance to source it. -Mike On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: Something happens online. Mary Joe blogs about it. we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote her. Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable source. correct? this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? 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 Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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
[videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
If enough people filed a complaint about this guy to the powers that be at Wikipedia, would not something be done about him? How could Wikipedia deny putting this little putz in his place when faced with hundreds of emails complaining about him? Would a letter writing campaign help matters? Who would we write to? David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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_blogoldid=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 draftor 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
[videoblogging] Vlog Deathmatch Promo online
Posted my Vlog Deathmatch Music Video Challenge Promo: http://vlogdeathmatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/bill-cammack-vlog-deathmatch-promo.html or http://tinyurl.com/369q7p Also, Rupert Howe is the latest addition to the Vlog Deathmatch lineup. :) * Rupert Howe - http://twittervlog.blogspot.com -- Bill C. BillCammack.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://VlogDeathmatch.com Vlog Deathmatch Music Video Challenge welcomes Irina Slutsky! :D Current Lineup: (eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] to join to the lineup) * Vergel Evans - Lx7.ca * Bill Cammack - ReelSolid.tv * Drew Olanoff - SCRIGGITY.com * Chuck Olsen - blogumentary.typepad.com * Adam Quirk - wreckandsalvage.com * Michael Verdi - michaelverdi.com * Bonny The Bui Brothers - NoodleScar.com * Nathan Miller - bicycle-sidewalk.com * Becca Havens - missbhavens.blogspot.com * Erik Nelson - wreckandsalvage.com * Irina Slutsky - geekentertainment.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: Sweet. Added. :) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@ wrote: I'm in. On 4/27/07, Bill Cammack BillCammack@ wrote: The battle lines have been drawn in the vlogosphere. Use your vlog skills to make the ultimate music video the only way that matters -- by videoblogging. http://vlogdeathmatch.com/ Email BillC@ if you want to be involved! Current Lineup: Vergel Evans - http://Lx7.ca Bill Cammack - http://ReelSolid.tv Drew Olanoff - http://SCRIGGITY.com Chuck Olsen - http://blogumentary.typepad.com/ DEADLINE TO SUBMIT: May 14, 2007 -- Bill C. http://BillCammack.com 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] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actualy respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. i.e. I'm not even going to respond to the suggestion that I have only contributed one sourced thing because this isn't about me. I never once deleted your cited contribution. Nor do I get pleasure from removing your unsourced personal research from the article. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the article. This was the initial reason for deleting it: Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content. Patrick On 5/2/07, Mike Meiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not Mike. I submite the star trek fan made productions article and related star trek articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions The fact that said projects exists, and that they are noteworthy and being on wikipedia is in no way determined by the amount of mainstream articles on them. These articles are made possible by the small contribution of hundreds of editors working together as you can see on the history page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek_fan_productionsaction=history When one editor dominates the discussion, particularly in deleting all contributions, discussion and collaboration fundamentally cannot happen. To put it quite simply... this is not a problem with original researcha and sources it's a problem with trolling. Make no mistake about it. If wikipedia has a fault it's that it doesn't have enough protections from trolling, specifically delete trolling. There are two things we can do about this. 1) persue banning of the troll... am working on it, and I encourage others to talk to wikipedia admins and others of experience on how to get the ball rolling on this 2) move the wikipedia article to pbwiki or some other place where we can protect it from trolling. I am waiting on this until we first take action with point #1. Peace, -Mike On 5/1/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]michael%40michaelverdi.com wrote: On 5/1/07, Jay dedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] jay.dedman%40gmail.com wrote: Im answering my own question after researching wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability I guess the main editors at Wikipedia feel that if the major press doesnt cover a story/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 Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
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] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Don't use vandalism... specify delete trolling and cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy On 4/30/07, David Meade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: found it ... if we undo his undo should we mark it as Vandalism (defined as change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia) ... or what? On 4/30/07, 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 On 4/29/07, 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 -- http://www.DavidMeade.com Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
Simply revert his deletes by going into the history tab, clicking on the date of the lastest version before he deleted, edit that version and save. Before saving be sure to include his name and why you are reverting. I. E. Undid Pdelongchamp's deletion, citing wikipedias editing policy on imperfections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy; Or some other better reason if you have it. I guess it's to be an edit war, we really have no choice since noone can work on the article with him constantly deleting everything. -Mike On 4/30/07, 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 On 4/29/07, 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
Re: [videoblogging] Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
I'm not going to write too much except to highlight what I was talking about in my last email. It's difficult to deal with someone that would rather make personal attacks than to actually respond to the encyclopedic reasoning for my edits. yeah...lets keep personal attacks out of this. id like to explore the encyclopedic reasoning. I never nominated the Video blog article for deletion though I did initially vote in favour of deletion after it was nominated because I agreed with the reasoning. That was until I decided to do a clean up of the article and source the definition. In the end, the voting result was to keep the article. This was the initial reason for deleting it: Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dictionary definitions, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. remember too that this deletion was proposed a while ago...when videoblogging was still really underground. I think by now...few people could say that a Videoblog was not an artform in itself. lets put this to rest. It's unfortunate that these are pretty much the same problems that still plague the article. However, we've been making progress on the article since this group discussion has started and I think that if you were to start contributing again and assume good faith that we can get back to the issues on the article's talk page continue to improve the content. so before we move on, Id like to get your take on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions Is this page valid to you? it has no mainstream citations, but seems neutral, valid, and is extremely useful. would you delete this page? I think if anything, we could at least document the debate...that i think we can agree on. Patrick, id like to see what you're contributing to the article. we got to start somewhere. Jay -- Here I am http://jaydedman.com Check out the latest project: http://pixelodeonfest.com/ Webvideo festival this June
