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/event....then 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
