Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
- 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:
This was picked up by other blogs and online news sites:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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"
> 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,
> and Liz Games
> to choose what ever definition they want for Videobloggers.
> -- Enric
> --- In email@example.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
> > happened: if it's important to document, then hey, save it in a safe
> > place!
> > Respectfully,
> > WtW
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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]
- 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]