Jay, while I'm listening intently on this... I find it very ironic Pat has not cited or quoted from wikipedia on what wikipedia considers good sources and original research.
It occurs to me that he's adlibing his own personal idea of what proper sources should and should not be. I would have no problem with this discussion, would indeed enjoy it, if it weren't the criteria by which he's deleted thousands of people's contributions to the videoblogging article. Pat, I would challenge you since it's the absolute basis of your argument to not give your opinion but to base your argument upon what wikipedia says. -Mike On 5/1/07, Jay dedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wikipedia says that articles should be based on reliable, published sources > > because this involves a reliable publication process. i.e. if we lowered > > the bar to blogs, anyone could write anything and cite themselves because > > there's no reliable publication process. So are blogs excluded? No. > > Blogs > > can still be used but the main point should be backed up by a reliable > > source. That means if I want to write about how the definition is under > > debate, I'll have to find a reliable source to show that this debate is > > notable, and then i can use a blog (or other less reliable source) as a > > another source to give more examples. > > just so im clear...the process for citation needs to be like this: > Something happens online. > Mary Joe blogs about it. > we wait for someone from a traditional newspaper to call Mary Joe and quote > her. > Once the traditional newspaper publishes the quote, it's now a reliable > source. > > correct? > > this would mean that only is a reliable source (ir newspaper) comments > on an event will it be notable. That's strange. I didnt know that was > how wikipedia worked. Can you share the link that defines this? > > > I contribute to a few articles. The Video blog article being the main one. > > And recently, due to this discussion, there's been a lot of progress on it > > and i've been working with other editors to source the timeline and > > hopefully this momentum will keep going. I used to have a vlog with my > > roommate but then I bought a condo and we both got our own places. I > > naturally got pretty busy after moving and never got back into it. > > http://cookingkittycorner.blogspot.com/ > I remember working with you at Vloggercon. > you really helped randy and jan hold down the audio and video. > > > Well, personally I'm starting to lean towards Richard BFs definition > > because > > videoblogs seem to be a genre now more than a website structure. > > But that's just my opinion. I agree that the definition is changing and > > doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but my opinion > > doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. > > but if a newspaper says that your opinion is right, then it belongs in > an encyclopedia. > > > Ok, so reliable sources seem to say that vlogs are blogs with video. Let's > > take the dispute over the definition. Though the dispute may seem notable > > to you, me and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on > > what is considered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the > > dispute, > > we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care > > about it and that the dispute is, consequently, unencyclopedic. Until a > > reliable sources uses a different definition, the old definition is all we > > can use in the encyclopedia article. > > so what youre saying is....we let newspapers define what videoblogging > is because they are "reliable sources". Is that where we are in the > Wikipedia article? we go out and find quotes in the media...and build > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlog? > > are industry blogs okay? > > Jay > > > > > > -- > Here I am.... > http://jaydedman.com > > Check out the latest project: > http://pixelodeonfest.com/ > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
