Jay dedman wrote:
>> andrew michael baron wrote:
>> I have found, in general, that Wikipedia works best when the people
>> who edit and shape the information are people who are interested or
>> fans, without being directly involved. Thus they can be less subjective.
>
> I agree with this.
> I wou
> I have found, in general, that Wikipedia works best when the people
> who edit and shape the information are people who are interested or
> fans, without being directly involved. Thus they can be less subjective.
I agree with this.
I would not feel comfortable writing the wikipedia definition on
The vlog entry on Wikipedia is more like a commercial than a place to
go to understand anything about videoblogging. Its just a bunch of
links and you must follow the links to understand what is going on
for each listing. The entire page of the vlog entry is a big pile of
garbage, in my opi
I went to take a look and see that someone reverted the entry back to
the state it was in, prior to your edits.
On Jan 28, 2006, at 8:14 AM, petertheman wrote:
> I removed most outside links from the Wikipedia "videoblogging" entry
> (including the one to Mefeedia), leaving only a link to a few
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:14:38 +0100, petertheman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I removed most outside links from the Wikipedia "videoblogging" entry
> (including the one to Mefeedia), leaving only a link to a few key,
> nonprofit sites: this group, freevlog and vlogmap.
>
> Sure, disagree, but its
I removed most outside links from the Wikipedia "videoblogging" entry
(including the one to Mefeedia), leaving only a link to a few key,
nonprofit sites: this group, freevlog and vlogmap.
Sure, disagree, but its better this way than with a long list of
self-serving commercial links. Wikipedia is
