Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
- A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime tonight)...
Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging:
I didn't exactly agree -
Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) -
Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had
already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated
by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video -
http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before
all the editing that he talks about happened -
January 2006 the VlogTheory list started -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after
I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and
Richard wrote a bit also.
Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173
and later writes a definition of videoblogging -
(Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments
all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well)
It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after
Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was
left of the already sparse article.
So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's
one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later
all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o
Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes
within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page:
As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I
just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off
to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before.
- On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <pdelongchamp@...> wrote:
>... does this mean "The Journal of Experimental Psychology" or "Science" or
> 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.
the "New England Journal of Medicine" are discouraged a reliable sources?
(Since they require a subscription?)
... just trying to understand
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]