Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
- On 5/1/07, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:
> I always thought Richard BF was too fixated, in an almost unhealthyCareful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you
> way, on the need to classify videoblogging as a genre and control the
> 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*.
go and edit the wikipedia page. Going with the definition that a
videoblog is "video on blog" is also a strongly held, personal point
of view that's been disputed. Using that as the definition effectively
eliminates everything published only on YouTube which is maybe not
such a good idea. Richard's post, while maybe not perfect, at least
allows what most of us do and what some of the people on YouTube do to
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs
- 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]