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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Rupert
    Yeah, sorry. I didn t actually mean not researched at all. Delete me! :) R On 1 May 2007, at 12:12, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: ... Videoblogs have been
    Message 1 of 130 , May 1 4:50 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Yeah, sorry. I didn't actually mean not researched at all. Delete
      me! :)
      R

      On 1 May 2007, at 12:12, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote:

      Den 01.05.2007 kl. 12:17 skrev Rupert <rupert@...>:

      > 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.

      Videoblogs have been researched, not by many, but they there. At the
      very
      least there is a lot of blog research that can be applied without too
      many
      issues. Back in 2005 I did a short, short list which includes a
      couple of
      vlog papers <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20051111-1530/ >

      In our own community alone we have Adrian Miles (and the rest of the
      RMIT
      crew, you know who you are), Trine Berry, Richard Hall, Kristoffer
      Gansing
      plus the large group of grad students (too many to count, but they're
      very
      smart. I know because I'm one). I approve all the members on the
      vlogtheory group so I know for a fact there are many in the academics
      who
      either work with vlogs or are interested in working with vlogs in the
      future.

      I think the issue is that those who are involved in research are not
      interested in the wikipedia article and who can blame them when
      everything
      gets deleted en masse? My own reason for not getting involved is that
      the
      Neutral Point of View policy more often than not gets interrpreted as No
      Point of View and I don't have time for that crap (See <URL:
      http://www.solitude.dk/archives/20061028-2354/ > ).

      --
      Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen
      <URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >





      [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

        --
        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.