> 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
Not to mention that wikis are considered new media, too! So a new medium is requiring an old medium to describe a new medium...this is a strange development...I guess we shouldn't cite wikipedia articles as having any authority, then. Bizarre. Carter Harkins http://crowdabout.us > > > > > > 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. Thereâs one catch though, itâs 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) > > > > Thereâs 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 [email protected], "Jan McLaughlin" > > <jannie.jan@> 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 >
