I can see that they are highly discouraged, because you have to pay money to view the source...not everyone can view them..and the list goes on..
but they are still HIGHLY creditable...LOL .. so why can't I put them?? what do you mean check it out? They are creditable...done. Check and done. Nick --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Delongchamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I know that sources that require subscriptions are heavily discouraged. > I've never looked up student newspapers though. I'd say there's a good > chance they're ok. You should check it out. > > On 5/3/07, Nick Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So.... does this mean I should post on Wiki bout my article in the Wall > > Street Journal > > <http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.ht\ > > ml?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month<http://online.wsj.com/PA2VJBNA4R/article/SB115983680201080700-search.html?KEYWORDS=nick+schmidt&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month>> > > . It is a creditable > > source, but in order for you to view the article you have to be a member > > of wsj.com. > > > > Also what about the article that Josh Leo, Ryann, Sunny, Jay, & I from > > the University of Illinois student newspaper > > <http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30\ > > /News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814\ > > 078.shtml<http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2007/03/30/News/vlogging.Combines.Videos.Blogs.To.Connect.Users.In.Newer.Ways-2814078.shtml>> > > ? Is that creditable? > > > > So could I put those 2 sources on the vlog wiki? > > My guess is no, because of the WIKIPI Police.. but that is fine with me. > > > > This is just kind of funny to me...but interested subject. > > > > Nick > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Patrick Delongchamp" > > <pdelongchamp@> wrote: > > > > > > >--when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > > > > > I agree that's it's very silly to say that the definition of a video > > blog > > > should to come from traditional media. The idea is this: Wikipedia > > has to > > > set a standard so how low should they set it? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > --also, from your user history it looks like the Vlog entry is the > > > > only one you are working with? Maybe you could explain a bit > > > > of your background so we know where you're coming from. You > > > > are obviously very interested in defining the subject of > > videoblogging. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > >I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very > > > >new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this group > > > >since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You > > > >can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a > > > >traditional newspaper that may have to one of us....in order to add > > to > > > >the Vlog entry. > > > > > > >So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how > > > >what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the > > best > > > >wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and > > > >different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing > > > >points of view? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I think that's the issue here. People usually think that because > > Wikipedia > > > is online, you can make an article about anything. What people may > > not > > > realize is that wikipedia really strives to have encyclopedic content > > and > > > hundreds of articles and contributions are deleted everyday. Many > > more than > > > are actually kept. I had my first article deleted. I didn't agree > > with it > > > at first but I came to realize that Cooking Kitty Corner wasn't > > exactly a > > > notable video blog. :P I also started getting into Wikipedia a lot > > more and > > > it's definitely a hobby of mine now. > > > > > > So should reliable sources be defined differently? Maybe. There's > > > discussions all the time on Wikipedia policies. but as it is, we have > > to go > > > with the current consensus on what is a reliable source. > > > > > > On 5/1/07, Jay dedman jay.dedman@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > hey Patrick-- > > > > > > > > thanks for replying. > > > > here's some questions I have to better understand this ongoing > > process. > > > > --when you say "the need to cite content"....must the sources be > > > > "traditional media"? or can they come from blogs? > > > > --also, from your user history > > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pdelongchamp), > > it > > > > looks like the Vlog entry is the only one you are working with? > > Maybe > > > > you could explain a bit of your background so we know where you're > > > > coming from. You are obviously very interested in defining the > > subject > > > > of videoblogging. > > > > > > > > I guess the confusion comes from defining a topic that is still very > > > > new. You are bumping up against the passion/frustration in this > > group > > > > since many people here have helped shape what videoblogging is. You > > > > can understand it's a little ironic that we need to quote a > > > > traditional newspaper that may have to one of us....in order to add > > to > > > > the Vlog entry. > > > > > > > > So i agree that everything must be verifiable...but lets define how > > > > what these sources must be for a new field. Very often I find the > > best > > > > wikipedia articles of new topics simply record the controversy and > > > > different ways of thinking. Can we at least document our differing > > > > points of view? > > > > > > > > jay > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Here I am.... > > > > http://jaydedman.com > > > > > > > > Check out the latest project: > > > > http://pixelodeonfest.com/ > > > > Webvideo festival this June!!!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [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] >
