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

Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

Expand Messages
  • Enric
    It s not my focus right now to argue and support the thesis that definitions are necessary to be effective. The one piece of information I can readily provide
    Message 1 of 130 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      It's not my focus right now to argue and support the thesis that
      definitions are necessary to be effective. The one piece of
      information I can readily provide is on Dave Winer and the wikipedia
      definition of Podcasting. When Adam Curry anonymously deleted
      information, Dave Winer came out in front criticizing it:

      http://www.scripting.com/2005/06/11.html#peopleWithErasers

      This was picked up by other blogs and online news sites:

      http://tinyurl.com/27tzc8
      http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-5980758-7.html
      http://tinyurl.com/2tb46o

      -- Enric
      -======-
      http://cirne.com

      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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"
      > definition."
      >
      > 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,
      >
      > http://tinyurl.com/37n9ld
      >
      > and Liz Games
      >
      > http://tinyurl.com/2bs35r
      >
      > to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers.
      >
      > -- Enric
      > -======-
      > http://cirne.com
      >
      > --- 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
      > have
      > > 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, 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

        --
        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.