Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

60105Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Enric
    May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      My view is that it's the responsibility of a group to define itself
      and let that be clearly known to others. Now this doesn't mean that
      the definition is set in stone and stays static. It changes as the
      nature of the group and it's work changes and evolves. But to have
      random definitions, multiple, competing definitions and such is not
      democracy, but just makes it hard for others to understand and
      appreciate what the group is up to. It allows people like Dave Winer,


      and Liz Games


      to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers.

      -- Enric

      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wallythewonderdog"
      <wallythewarlord@...> wrote:
      > (A half hour later...)
      > Now I see the importance, I think.
      > For those who think this group - its members and their efforts - are
      > at least important enough to document in some kind of historical
      > record, the screwing around with its Wikipedia entry is hurtful
      > vandalism, at the least, but maybe also at the most.
      > So lemme ask one more obvious (to me anyway) question: does the
      > "definitive" - or at least, the fairly accurate, as we know it now -
      > entry about this group reside somewhere other than Wikipedia, for
      > safekeeping? Rupert, on your hard drive, maybe, or Verdi's, or some
      > one's? It's not like youse guyz NEED an external site to maintain
      > your own history, is it?
      > This is not to excuse the rampant illogical "editing" of the vlog
      > wikipedia entry, of course; it's just to suggest what may already have
      > happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe
      > place!
      > Respectfully,
      > WtW
      > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "wallythewonderdog"
      > <wallythewarlord@> wrote:
      > >
      > > OK, fwiw:
      > >
      > > I did not get past this gem:
      > >
      > > "There's one catch though, it's an encyclopedia which means the
      > > content must be encyclopedic."
      > >
      > > Now, arguments/debates/discussions in this group are worth their
      > > weight in electrons, I know, but somebody PLEASE tell me no one
      > > currently participating here thinks this any more than drunky wunky
      > > talk....What did I miss?
      > >
      > >
      > > WtW
      > >
    • Show all 130 messages in this topic