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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Rupert
    Thanks, Gena, Great post. I m glad Patrick has not deleted this time, just used Wikipedia s proper markup for requesting changes according to his
    Message 1 of 130 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Gena, Great post.

      I'm glad Patrick has not deleted this time, just used Wikipedia's
      proper markup for requesting changes according to his interpretation
      of the rules.

      As for the list of news sources, which (perhaps ironically) Patrick
      has marked for removal, I guess we could replace it with a whole big
      chunk of text which tells the story of how videoblogging has been
      reported in the MSM with a LOT of footnotes, but I think it's more
      elegant and useful to have a comprehensive list for those seeking
      further information. It tells a story in itself, and it's hardly a
      link farm, which is what Wikipedia is trying to prevent by this
      rule. I think this use of the list, at this point in time, inhabits
      an acceptable grey area. But that's my opinion.

      I'm going to do some work now!


      On 1 May 2007, at 05:38, Gena wrote:

      Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of
      view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD

      Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video
      Blog section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion
      on a topic.

      Citation from an authorized and verifiable source is important. That
      verification can come from a number of sources. This can include
      traditional media. However even librarians (and those that hope to
      work among them) understand the rapidly increasing flow of
      information. We absolutely evaluate but don't restrict where good
      information can come from.

      For an quick example: Twitter. M$M (outside of the computer
      publications) hasn't a clue about what Twitter is or its
      functionality. If I had to write up a citation for Twitter there would
      be no point in searching traditional media, although I would do that
      as a matter of course. On the date of this post I'm not going to find
      a Twitter book or manual.

      What are the words, terms and concepts I need to understand? What is
      the vocabulary? Can I find multiple source to verify that vocabulary?

      I would also go to the source, i.e. the Twitter web site. I would look
      for competitors or vendors with a similar service. I would seek out
      and observe those people who would have a relationship with the
      service or who would have experience. This could be professional or
      highly advanced nerd or geek.

      Next, I would look at affinity groups (there must be a Twitter group
      someplace) and observe the posts for those persons who seem to know
      what they are talking about. They could led me to a verifiable or
      trusted source.

      My point is that there is a process to verifying information. It is
      not an exclusive "it can only come from one direction" process.
      Information has a flow, a relationship to the people that use it. It
      is organic not static. Course if you do it right there can be a kind
      of rapture in crafting just the right citation.



      [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
      • 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.