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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Rupert
    I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the debate. It was a
    Message 1 of 130 , May 1, 2007
      I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthy
      way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the
      debate.

      It was a strongly held personal point of view, and one that was
      disputed. Personally, I don't agree with him. Many of us do not,
      and not just out of intellectual stupidity or out of some misguided
      romanticism or need to aggrandize the videoblog. And I don't think
      one side has to *win*.

      Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http://
      www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre.

      In a small community, one person can hold disproportionate power just
      by doing more than anyone else is prepared to. It's a difficult
      balance - you want people to lead, and get involved - but you don't
      want them to do too much or their opinion dominates to the detriment
      of other valid (but more quietly voiced) opinions.

      The power of deletion is one of the most powerful of all for someone
      like this to hold. It's dispiriting, and it kills discussion. It's
      a disaster in a scenario like this, where there are different
      opinions on a concrete subject that has not been academically
      researched.

      The ideal scenario when one person is wielding disproportionate power
      is that the whole community makes their opinions heard - and when
      there are differences of opinion as to a definition, as there are
      here, a middle path is followed - a compromise is reached.

      The people who want it all their own way will say that that's what
      they're doing - that Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and
      original research, and so they delete everything that's not sourced.
      One group of purists wanted to delete the video blog entry completely
      at one point, and it almost happened, which would have been absurd
      IMO. Richard BF blamed this proposed deletion on the messy
      discussions in the entry to try and bolster his own point, which was
      not true - the deletion was part of a wider semantic cleansing
      program by people who wanted to strip down definitions relating to
      blogging.

      I don't think it's particularly helpful to get back into the
      polarised discussions of whether it's a genre, a sub-genre, whether
      it exists at all.

      Let's have an entry that acknowledges the disagreements in a simple
      paragraph or two, and moves on to embrace all sides of the
      definition. That will be a far more informative entry for people
      wanting an authoritative reference. But we won't get there if we
      keep getting every addition deleted.

      Rupert
      http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
      http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
      http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/




      On 1 May 2007, at 08:44, Michael Verdi wrote:
      A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime
      tonight)...

      Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging:
      http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/
      http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74

      I didn't exactly agree -
      http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/

      Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) -
      http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433

      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 -
      http://tinyurl.com/27kyht

      January 2006 the VlogTheory list started -
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after
      Vloggercon 2006

      I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and
      Richard wrote a bit also.
      http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/
      http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/
      Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173
      and later writes a definition of videoblogging -
      http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771
      (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:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser

      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.

      - Verdi





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Richard (Show) Hall
      ... ... does this mean The Journal of Experimental Psychology or Science or the New England Journal of Medicine are discouraged a reliable sources?
      Message 130 of 130 , May 4, 2007
        On 5/3/07, Patrick Delongchamp <pdelongchamp@...> 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.
        >




        ... does this mean "The Journal of Experimental Psychology" or "Science" or
        the "New England Journal of Medicine" are discouraged a reliable sources?
        (Since they require a subscription?)

        ... just trying to understand

        ... Richard

        --
        Richard
        http://richardhhall.org
        Shows
        http://richardshow.org
        http://inspiredhealing.tv


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.