[videoblogging] Contributors on YouTube May Share Advertising Revenue
SAN FRANCISCO, May 4 Some of the amateur video producers who put clips on YouTube are turning pro. YouTube, the video-sharing site purchased last year by Google, said on Friday that it would begin placing ads alongside clips from some of its most popular contributors and share revenue from those ads with them. The program is small for now. Only 20 to 30 video producers, including YouTube celebrities like Lonelygirl15, HappySlip and smosh, have been invited to join - New York Times, http://tinyurl.com/yok7jl Red Herring, http://tinyurl.com/2fukpw -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
[videoblogging] Re: Sources and your stories
-==-==- http://youtube.com/watch?v=TRU6tQdyYqQ -==-==- --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Short version: Think 'what actions we can take to make the article decent' rather than 'what actions can we take against pat' or you will probably continue to be frustrated by wikipedia, approaching its processes from the wrong angle methinks. Long version: Whats come out of it is lots of good advise, some of which was given to you on wikipedia before the issue was ever brought to this group. These processes will go the right way for you more if you stop jumping the gun. Even the user review process is a process too far at this stage, from what Ive learnt so far. You've been advised to try that if user keeps editing things without explaining himself. But I think thats supposed to mean from now on, its already been shown that some wikipedians are agreeing with some of pdelongchamps historical edits, he doesnt seem to have much problem explaining them in was that seem in tune with wikipedias aims. So for me the earlier stages of dispute resolution are far more desirable, the first of which could be considering the possibility that the past will not repeat itself. If it does repeat itself, the proper ways to proceed are now known. The starting point now is dialogue on the articles talk page. When you are given advice about things surrounding obtaining concensus on the article, I assume that means people discussing it on the talk page. Forming a concensus on this list, for example, is irrelevent, in the same way an external group cant come here and tell us we've all got to wear chocolate underpants when posting to this group, because theres a concensus on this point elsewhere. If that doesnt work, then can go on to steps involving 3rd parties trying to moderate the dispute, and if they fail and people go mad and abuse the wiki at any point, some of these stronger procedures can be considered. If the history of edits was as bad as portrayed here, and it had been discussed a lot on the talk page, and 3rd party advice was sought and listened to, then the way these harsher processes panned out would of been different. I found it very useful to look at other users who were up for ban discussion, the histories of other disputes, and indeed the user review thing you are now referring to. I look at the cases in question and the level of alleged abuse, and compare it to what we are dealing with here, to see if this case seems to fit. One piece of advice I see you were given before things exploded onto this list, was to keep a copy of the article the way you would like it on one of your user pages, with a view to 3rd parties then helping it to be improved to the extent where it couldnt fall foul of justifiable edits, then some time later merging it with the real article. Its a shame that didnt happen. Its one of the reasons Im still posting here about such things, it makes me worry that the dispute is powered by some peoples alternative beliefs about what wikipedias policies should be, or a refusal to take on board legitimate reasons why your content may be deleted. If thats even partially true, dispute resolutions are unlikely to satisfy, spend energy on other wiki's with differing approaches as a constructive alternative to fighting an impossible battle? Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meiser groups-yahoo-com@ wrote: Just and FYI... the vote isn't over on the banning issue... but at this point it mine as well be... what has come out of it is there are some other actions we can take against pat, a sort of user review process... I'll be there if anyone wants to pursue it, but I'm so sick of the whole thing I'm pretty much done with the whole issue for now. -Mike
[videoblogging] Re: Sources and your stories
Good point :) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfVqNlEKFU Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -==-==- http://youtube.com/watch?v=TRU6tQdyYqQ -==-==-
[videoblogging] Re: AFTRA Jurisdiction Over Web Media?
Thanks for the responses. From the wording I'd received, I was under the impression that I was one of the stragglers who hadn't worked out a deal with AFTRA yet. If no one else has much experience here, then it does sound more like a matter of us being seen as a test case in that regard. I'm not a traditional employer of actors -- I'd have to be making money from Something to Be Desired to do that -- but I do have a cast of dozens. I can see where we're very much a target for AFTRA. I'm certainly not opposed to paying the cast -- I'm well aware that I don't create the show alone -- but I do wish folks from traditional media backgrounds were working a bit harder to ensure that there was actually an audience and a market in the web video medium BEFORE ensuring that the participants are protected from if / then eventualities. Nothing drives away potential explorers like red tape... Cheers. Justin Kownacki Producer, Something to Be Desired http://www.somethingtobedesired.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Sources and your stories
Should we take our cars? Ha! I'd never seen that. On May 5, 2007, at 3:01 AM, Steve Watkins wrote: Good point :) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfVqNlEKFU Cheers Steve Elbows -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com This email is: [ ] publishable [X] ask first [ ] private
[videoblogging] David Tames writes about delivering video on the web; 04/07
Prepping and Posting your Video to the Web Which of the many video sharing sites should you use? The answer really depends on your goals for the video. By David Tamés http://www.nefilm.com/news/archives/2007/05/web2.htm -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com This email is: [ ] publishable [X] ask first [ ] private
[videoblogging] Re: Sources and your stories
God point ; --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good point :) http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfVqNlEKFU Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric enric@ wrote: -==-==- http://youtube.com/watch?v=TRU6tQdyYqQ -==-==-
[videoblogging] Re: Saturday May 5th, 2007 FlashMeeting
Happenin': http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/d798df-8392 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This Saturday, 5/5/07, FlashMeeting is coming up. The starting time is 10am - noon PST USA, 1pm - 3pm EST USA, 17:00-19:00 GMT. Go to this link: http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/d798df-8392 For future and past meeting check the FlashMeeting page at: http://flashmeeting.cirne.com/index.php?title=Main_Page -- Enric -==- http://www.cirne.com
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Request for user ban on Wikipedia videoblogging article
Yes, the user dispute process is not well documented. It's quite clear to me after some chat's with admins that the community sanction board is for repeatedly banned users. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of procedure. Damn wikipedia is beuracratic. :) There is in fact a request for comment on user conduct. That would appear to be the proper step... I'm going to wait a bit before I submit the issue there. We'll see how things go... it does appear the mere possibility of action keeps Pdelongchamp's excessive deletes in check. It's what happens a month, or two months from now that will be the true sign. In the meantime feel free to add to the vb article on wikipedia or better yet on the new vlogumentary pbwiki.com sitelet jay has set up where you can be assured you're hard work will not be simply dissmissed and deleted at the drop of a hat. The great thing about wikipedia is never really lost, and eventually I'll get a chance to go back into the edit history and resserect great contributions from past deletes. -Mike On 5/5/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now for something completely different ;) --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everyone, I know there's about zero interest left in this. (i feel the same way, i would have dropped it a long time ago if it weren't for my wiki account on the chopping block) Just wanted to report that the Ban Request has been closed with results pasted below. Thankfully, if anything good came out of this it's that there's some good discussions going on in the talk page and the article has gained a lot of sources. I'd like to get a third party Admin to check out the article in a week or so and give us some tips comments. Hopefully, someone'll throw in some book citations. Good weekend and let's hope for a calmer Monday. Community sanction discussion Well, what I see there, in for example this edit[1], is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really *would* need a lot of improvement. Wikipedia is not[2] the dictionary, though we do have a sister project, Wiktionary,[3] which you might wish to look at if you want to write dictionary definitions. Also, please note that, to be quite frank, I couldn't care less who any of you are, up to and including if you invented the Internet. We write from reliable sources,[4] never our own knowledge, thoughts, or experience[5], so it really doesn't matter a bit who an editor is. If Linus Torvalds[6] came along to edit the Linux[7] article, he'd *still* be expected to source. (And deal with me asking about a few bugfixes. But that's a different story.) From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists[8], dictionary definitions[9], material sourced to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to *listen to him*, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable. - Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_blogdiff=127290390oldid=127280521 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktionary [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:LAUNDRY [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DICDEF *Comments after looking at the evidence* Being sensitive to your concerns I have to ask you guys from groups.yahoo.com/vlogging - have you read policy documents before coming to Community sanction noticeboard? First off if members of the yahoo group are working to support each other this is a breach of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:Meatpuppets[1] and a serious one - Single purpose accounts[2] are not encouraged. Second although Pdelongchamp didn't mention it there is a possible Conflict of interest[3] problem here - authors or those associated with them should not be adding their books to wikipedia - this site is not for self promotion. I haven't seen one reason to block Pdelongchamp. The diff I see here[4] is an example of proper editing practice - removal of original research[5]. The only issue I could have with Pdelongchamp is their slight failure to assume good faith[6] but this is not a blocking offence. I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [7] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK - but only if they were worked into the article. As far as I can see there is
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Threats and male vloggers
Steve, That last comment was completely out of line ont eh admin thing. They accused an entire community of sock puppeting... on the basis of ONE new user account. There is no cospiracy to sock puppet the issue. Secondly, there IS NO CONFLICT of interest... again an attack on one user... and Michael verdi did not post his book... I did... and several others did over the course of the article. Thirdly, nearly every single admin judged the issue before any evidence against Pat was presented though I clearly asked for the time to present evidence since long term trolling is hard to reasearch and show, and said it was forthcoming. Imagine that, any court, trial, or jury process that happens without regard to evidence... that's sadly damning of wikipedia's process. A very fundamental flaw. Lastly the last thing this was was a vindication of Pat. It's mostly an issue of process... quite frankly user conflict is not as well documented as editing conflict resolution... there is a request for comment on user conduct... which I will be persuing given a few days, it is a far better first step on resolving the issue. -Mike On 5/3/07, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK I mus stop posting here on this topic soon, but just to clarify how different the detail of wikipedia guidelines can be compared to the short version. The following is from the conflict of interest page I just linked to ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest ) , and I hope you will agree that it employs more common sense and balance about these matters than mine and others comments about wikipedia rules suggest: Close relationships Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution — when editing in that area. The definition of too close in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject. Campaigning Activities regarded by insiders as simply getting the word out may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. Citing oneself You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well again bear in mind thats just one persons opinion, but they werent saying such books should not be included. They were saying its not a good idea for people to be adding their own books to wikipedia, probably because it has the potential to threaten the neutral aims of wikipedia, or lead to questions about conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Its also true that people arent supposed to go around accusing eachother of conflicts of interest, and so thats why its probably just best for potentialy biased parties to steer clear of topics that are too close to home, or at least to read and digest the above page very carefully. As usual with these things, the rules are not totally set in stone, there can be exceptions, but all the nuanced detail of these processes and rules take many hours to read. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Heath heathparks@ wrote: Published BOOKS about videoblogging should not be included? What does it matter if the auther added them or not? They are
[videoblogging] Sutree: user aggregated instructional videos
Ooh this sounds good, was just reading about it on Techcrunch; http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/03/sutree-user-aggregated-instructional-videos/ http://www.sutree.com/ Ahh I love instructional videos on the web, and they werent something Id ever bought on DVD etc before net video came of age. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Flash Meeting 1pm CST Podcamp San Antonio
Just a quick note to let you know that from 1-2pm CST we will be having a Flash Meeting discussing PodCamp San Antonio. We're only 2 weeks away from Texas' First PodCamp and we're working on the last minute planning. http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/e8f9e4-8279 Stop in to chat or to find out everything you wanted to know about PCSA from the Organizers. So far we've got Patsy Robles of the 411Show who will be representing vloggers. It sure would be great to have a few more vloggers representing the video blogging medium. Any takers? We'd love to have you share your passion for video blogging in Sunny San Antonio! Cheers, Jennifer Navarrete -- PodCamp San Antonio http://PodCampSanAntonio.org --- http://www.MorningBrewCast.com Flickr pics: http://flickr.com/photos/morningbrewcast/ --- San Antonio Podcasting Meetup Organizer http://www.podcasting.meetup.com/58 --- San Antonio Podcasters http://www.sapodcasters.podbean.com
[videoblogging] Re: Sutree: user aggregated instructional videos
Although having read the comments on techcruch it seems like there are plenty of alternatives to the site. I see http://www.videojug.com/ is a good example and was mentioned on this list briefly in the past. Have people added the various videoblogging tutorial videos and screencasts to these sites? Cheers Steve Elbows -- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ooh this sounds good, was just reading about it on Techcrunch; http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/03/sutree-user-aggregated-instructional-videos/ http://www.sutree.com/ Ahh I love instructional videos on the web, and they werent something Id ever bought on DVD etc before net video came of age. Cheers Steve Elbows
[videoblogging] Re: AFTRA Jurisdiction Over Web Media?
Its certainly a confusing situation because generally these orgs are there to make sure they and their members get a fair slice of the pie, and if there is no pie, I dont know what will happen. I guess there must be pre-internet examples of some of their members, eg actors, working on projects for free or far belo the going rate, due to the production being a startup or not for profit or whatever. I do not know whether, for example, they might try to discourage members from working for free. Or whether if they come to see you, they will be encouraging your entire cast to join their union. Maybe indie film producers and actors have a presence somewhere on the web where you'l be able to get more responses. Please do let the group know how this turns out, as I dont know if you are the first to run into these issues but I bet you certainly wont be the last. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Justin Kownacki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for the responses. From the wording I'd received, I was under the impression that I was one of the stragglers who hadn't worked out a deal with AFTRA yet. If no one else has much experience here, then it does sound more like a matter of us being seen as a test case in that regard. I'm not a traditional employer of actors -- I'd have to be making money from Something to Be Desired to do that -- but I do have a cast of dozens. I can see where we're very much a target for AFTRA. I'm certainly not opposed to paying the cast -- I'm well aware that I don't create the show alone -- but I do wish folks from traditional media backgrounds were working a bit harder to ensure that there was actually an audience and a market in the web video medium BEFORE ensuring that the participants are protected from if / then eventualities. Nothing drives away potential explorers like red tape... Cheers. Justin Kownacki Producer, Something to Be Desired http://www.somethingtobedesired.com
[videoblogging] Good and Bad RSS Syndication Practices
Dave Winer linked to this on Twitter: Todd Cochrane on good and bad re-syndication practices: http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/007014.html text from blog entry by Todd Cochrane: == I have been asked by a number of people to list what I consider are good and bad RSS syndication practices. I reserve the right to modify this list as thoughts and ideas come in that I think are worthy of adding to the list. * Good things Media Sites do with Syndicated Content o Attribution with Hyper link back to Content Origin Point o Original RSS Feed clearly seen and linked to. o No other confusing RSS links are associated media listing o Audio and Video Media is not altered or trans-coded o Audio and Video Media is not cached direct link only o Publishing Author Name on Media Listing o Make Listing Opt In o Claim a Feed o Pay content producers a revenue share on site advertising. * Bad things Media Sites do with Syndicated Content o Auto adding content versus asking to become listed! o Replace RSS feed with sites own. o Pre-Roll or Post Roll ads in the syndicated sites media player! o Not allowing one to claim there own feed. o Not allowing one to opt out. o Not linking directly to the media file. o Not honoring Creative Commons License. o Add to Digg etc links that drive people away from original content point. o Trans-coding media into a new format without permission. == Many of these or all are the same as we've generated. -- Enric -==- http://cirne.com
