subject:"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

2007-05-01 Thread Jan McLaughlin

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

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

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

Jan

On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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

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

 :)

 XO,
 Jan

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

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

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






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




 Yahoo! Groups Links






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


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

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

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

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

2007-05-01 Thread Tom Gosse

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

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

I did not get past this gem:

There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the
content must be encyclopedic.

Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their
weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one
currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky
talkWhat did I miss?

WtW
 


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Steve Garfield

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

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

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


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

 The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact
 that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia.

 You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to
 help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out
 information is instead worthless, look at the
 page, unverified, disputed, etc and etc,

 oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is
 gone, no...wait, it's backoh, nope its gone...oh, back again

 how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back
 and forth squalibling.it's sad.just sad.

 Heath
 http://batmangeek.com

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gosse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

 Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom

   _

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

 OK, fwiw:

 I did not get past this gem:

 There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the
 content must be encyclopedic.

 Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their
 weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one
 currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky
 talkWhat did I miss?

 WtW



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






 Yahoo! Groups Links




--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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

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


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

- Verdi


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

On 5/1/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy
  way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the
  debate.

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

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

- Verdi

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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

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

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

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

- Verdi

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





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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Steve Garfield

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


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

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

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread David King

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

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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

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

 --
 Steve Garfield
 http://SteveGarfield.com

  



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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Mike Meiser

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


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

Thanks enric, that made my day.

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

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

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

On a side note,

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

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

-Mike


 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Delongchamp
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Sull,
 
  It may seem discouraging to have your content deleted but I've had
  conversations with you in the past on the importance of
 verifiability.  Yes,
  I nominated 'Crowdfunding' for deletion.  However, other editors
 voted and
  agreed that it should not be a wikipedia article. It didn't contain any
  sources, the topic was non notable by Wikipedia standards and the
 article
  consisted entirely of original research.  (A violation of
 Wikipedia's core
  content policies)
 
  See the discussion here:
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crowdfunding
 
  You also failed to mention that the 'Crowdfunding' article has been
 deleted
  on 2 other occasions in which I had no involvement or knowledge of.
 
  Yes, Mmeiser and I have been in an edit war over the Video blog
 article's
  content for many of the same reasons.  For months I have tried to
 discuss
  the encyclopedic reasons for removing original research, indiscriminate
  links, and the need to cite content from the article.  As responses, I
  received long, ranting, personal attacks and he refused to address my
  encyclopedic reasoning.
 
  What hasn't been mentioned yet is how Mmeiser recently sought the
 help of a
  Wikipedia Administrator.  The result was not surprising.
 
  a) The administrator did not reinstate the content.
 
  b) On the contrary, the administrator cited the important of
 verifiability
  and suggested to Mmeiser that he try editing content on a separate
 page and
  have me look it over and give him suggestions before he place it
 into the
  article. (an extreme I still don't think is necessary as long as he uses
  citations when making contributions)
 
  I tried to extend an olive branch and asked that we work together
  constructively to reintroduce the content with sources.  (what i had
 been
  trying to do all along)  He, once again, wrote a long rant, made
 personal
  attacks, and announced he was through contributing to the Video blog
  article.
 
  To date, Mmeiser has contributed a total of one verifiable piece of
 content
  to the article. (which i have never deleted)
 
  It's sometimes difficult to read a long emotional argument like those of
  Mmeiser without being moved to feel the same emotions.  This is what I
  assume happened when I was called pathetic, a loser, a troll, etc by
 group
  members earlier.
 
  Unfortunately, for Mmeiser and some others in this group, personal
 attacks
  don't carry much weight in civilized discussions regarding encyclopedic
  content.
 
  Since the yahoo group discussion began, we've had three people
 contribute
  encyclopedic content to the article: Ruperthowe, Bullemhead and
 myself.  For
  the amount of discussion we've had in this group, I'd like to see more
  happening to the article.  Let's keep improving it.
 
  I'm want to get some third party comments in a week or so after
 we've done
  some work on it.
 
  Patrick
 
 
  On 5/1/07, sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
 that user was also responsible for the deletion of my article
   'Crowdfunding'.
   and yes, meiser has been battling for months.
   fucking wikipedia. i dont have the time nor patience for such games.
  
   On 4/29/07, Michael Verdi [EMAIL PROTECTED]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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Mike Meiser

On 5/1/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 you are trying to define a whole new line of media by using old media
 standards, that to be honest, were in question to begin with.  That
 is insane and shortsighted and shows no understanding at all of how
 new media is working.

 I don't understnad this conversation at all, I really don't.  There
 are people on this list who basicly CREATED videoblogging, and you
 are telling them how it should be defined?  Oh I guess it's Wikipedia
 who is telling them, right?

 It's an evolving process right now, vlogging is being defined and re-
 defined as we speak, the article needs to grow with it...but that is
 just my opinion...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Jay dedman

 In fact I've long been enspired by the very example of this.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions

I was trying to find an example like this today.
its a wikipedia article about an internet project not covered by
mainstream news.
Its great, neutral information that is valuable to anyone interested
in Star Trek fan-created  media.

As far as I can see, all links/citations go back to other wikipedia
articles...or blog posts.

So what is the difference in what we are trying to do?
is this article not valid because it doesnt have traditional
sources...or are we being too strict?
I can see the need to make sure the Vlog article remains neutral...but
I think we have plenty of sources and reliability. We have several
years of practice and examples.

I worked with Pat at Vloggercon and really liked him.
either there is some over-editing going on...or we just dont
understand how wikipedia works.
id love to hear Pat's comments on these recent posts.

Ultimately what are we trying to do here?
we're trying to make sure the spirit of Videoblogging can grow by
documenting key concepts, examples, and history that the community has
created over the past 3 years. And that's an eternity in internet
time.

As verdi and enric said, we could just make our own page...and come
back to wikipedia another time.
http://videoblogginggroup.pbwiki.com/videoblog

Jay

-- 
Here I am
http://jaydedman.com

Check out the latest project:
http://pixelodeonfest.com/
Webvideo festival this June

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-05-01 Thread Mike Meiser

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

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

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

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

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

-Mike

On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Yeah, you and Jen are right about the Vtech stuff. thanks for taking
 it out.

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

 Rupert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Yeah, what if he's the Wikipedia version of Uma Thurman in Kill Bill,
   and we're the Crazy 88?
  
   Bring it on. Sign up to Watch the Vlog definition article if you
   can, and use your own judgement to see whether the changes you see
   are right, whoever makes them.
  
   I can see how you could get tired of it, Tom, but too many people -
   particularly media people - will continue use Wikipedia as a starting
   point, and it's important that vlogging is correctly represented
   there, not repeatedly vandalised by some random fool.
  
   If we keep up an honest watch of it, sooner of later he'll want to
   find somewhere else to play.
  
   I added a little something about the definition of vlogging, with
   reference to Winer, Cho, YouTube. I think it's reasonably on track,
   but I've never edited Wikipedia before, only consumed in large
   quantities. Don't mind it being changed/removed by rational people,
   of course.
  
   Rupert
  
   On 30 Apr 2007, at 12:15, Adrian Miles wrote:
  
around the 30/4/07 Jan McLaughlin mentioned about
 [videoblogging] Re:
Video Blog Wikipedia Entry that:
I just reinstated MMeiser's previous version.

Make a minor edit and sign up to watch the page.
   
have done so, I guess if enough of us do this then it either
 becomes
some weird escalated battle or he gives in?
--
cheers
Adrian Miles
this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x]
vogmae.net.au
   
   
  
  
  
   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  
  
  
  
   Yahoo! Groups Links
  
  
  
  

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

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






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




 Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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]

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-04-30 Thread Jen Simmons

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

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

 Rupert




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

Please take this out.

Jen


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



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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-04-30 Thread Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage

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

On 4/30/07, Adam Quirk, Wreck  Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-04-30 Thread Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 4/30/07, Rupert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

 Rupert

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

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



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




 Yahoo! Groups Links






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


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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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

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

Rupert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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

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

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

:)

XO,
Jan

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

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

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






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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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

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

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

Wow. Just...wow.

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

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

David
http://www.davidhowellstudios.com

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






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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-04-30 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

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

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

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

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

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-04-30 Thread Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen

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

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

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

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

2007-04-30 Thread David Meade

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





On 4/30/07, pdelongchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hey everyone,

 I seem to be the topic of conversation today.  I'm going to ignore the
 negative messages because I think it's great that there's renewed
 interest in the article.  The great thing about wikipedia is everyone
 can edit it.  Thereâ€™s one catch though, itâ€™s an encyclopedia which
 means the content must be encyclopedic.

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

 Thereâ€™s already sourced content contributed by Steve Garfield, Michael
 Meiser and myself in the article and I invite everyone else to contribute.

 Patrick D

 p.s. Sorry if I posted this twice.


 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jan McLaughlin
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Has rather been decimated.
 
  Wow.
 
  Anybody?
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog
 
  Jan
 
  --
  The Faux Press - better than real
  http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
  http://twitter.com/fauxpress
 
 
  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
 





 Yahoo! Groups Links






-- 
http://www.DavidMeade.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

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

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

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

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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry