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

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Rupert
    Yeah, reading back I don t know why I wrote half of what I wrote this morning, other than that I d had no sleep. I should just stop typing and go away for a
    Message 1 of 130 , May 1, 2007
      Yeah, reading back I don't know why I wrote half of what I wrote this
      morning, other than that I'd had no sleep. I should just stop typing
      and go away for a while, clear my head.
      I wouldn't have intended to give the impression that I was supporting
      one position or the other. I personally don't feel particularly
      passionate about the definition, or as capable of arguing one way or
      the other as a lot of other people. I'm all for as open a definition
      as possible, and a section on the wikipedia page which acknowledges
      that there is a debate, if other people think that's acceptable.
      Sorry I was hasty in writing, I'm going to unplug for a while.

      On 1 May 2007, at 16:24, Michael Verdi wrote:

      On 5/1/07, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:
      > 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*.

      Careful. Please take into account your personal feelings here when you
      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
      be encompassed.

      - Verdi

      Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs

      [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


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