As someone who's - new, as in, been a member of the list a few months - still trying to figure out many aspects of videoblogging - only exposure to the wiki entry issue has been on this email list this is how is seems to me.
People who have defined and shaped videoblogging are the most qualified people to contribute to the wiki. Things that have been added and then deleted were verifiable for the contributor because they were there when it happened. They were and are part of the ever- changing videoblogging landscape. Unfortunately, this isn't good enough according to Wikipedia policy. Ruperthowe described the problem on the talk page: "I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item" David Howell asks : "No original research? Why not?" And then "Why use "new media" to define "new media" with a requirement that the validation come from "old media." This is the problem. People are adding content that they know to be true because they are the movers and shakers, yet the content doesn't meet the policies of Wikipedia for citation and verifiability. And people are really upset at pdelongchamp for enforcing the Wiki policies. There seem to be two issues: 1) not agreeing with the policies that don't allow original research and 2) the manner in which pdelongchamp enforces the policies. There's not much you can do about #1 except wait for more "verifiable" sources to emerge or take the game somewhere else (which I believe Verdi setup something on pbwiki). I agree that it doesn't make much sense to only allow old media to define the faster paced new media. Now #2 is stickier. I looked over the history page and edits that pdelongchamp made stated the reason was not being in line with wiki policy. It could very well be that he gets his kicks by causing everyone frustration. I don't know, I don't know him but if I'm just going by what I've seen on here, it doesn't seem that way. I understand that many of you know each other and are friends in Real Life and want to stick by each other. I've only met three other videobloggers (but I hope to change that in the near future) so I can give a fairly objective view on the exchanges here. pdelongchamp has been called names and cursed at, yet his responses are well-measured, civil and only speak of improving the article according to Wikipedia policy. Either he's not quite what people are making him out to be or he's two-faced and manipulative. People are unhappy with Wikipedia's policy and are aiming their frustration at the person enforcing it. I think if pdelongchamp went away and never came back, there would be someone else to take his place as "gatekeeper." -- Kary Rogers http://karyhead.com On May 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > I dont think its asinine, I think its a basic concept of an > ecyclopedia. > > Now Im quite prepared to admit that this doesnt make encyclopedia's > the best source for detailed info on rapidly emerging fields, and I > would be quite happy if sites & people played with alternatives with > different rules, something that isnt wikipedia. > > My great concern though is how much this 'ban pat' stuff is merged in > with these issues. Even if there are a million vloggers here who think > the wikipedia rules are silly, that doesnt mean we can force change of > the rules when it comes to the vlog page on wikipedia. > > Now there is a wikipedia rule about ignoring the rules, which in an > ideal world could have been used to try to address this issue, but I > find the current debate practically unsalvagable as it has become too > personal. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows >
