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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Rupert
    Sure, random definitions and multiple competing definitions that don t acknowledge each other are not desirable - but there is considerable debate about the
    Message 1 of 130 , May 1 3:25 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Sure, random definitions and multiple competing definitions that
      don't acknowledge each other are not desirable - but there is
      considerable debate about the definition and whatever any of us feel
      it *should* be, it's constantly evolving. I doubt Winer looked for a
      definition before he posted - he surely would have found no support
      on Wikipedia for his view. But that's why I think that the debate
      needs to - in a concise and non-confrontational way - be
      acknowledged. So that you can say to someone like Winer (or Games,
      who just followed Winer's lead), Look - this has been discussed for a
      long time, and pretty much no one in all those discussions came up
      with a definition that even vaguely matches your "Vlog it to NBC"

      On 1 May 2007, at 08:24, Enric wrote:

      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
      > 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
      > >

      [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 9:35 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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


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