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
> >
>

A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime tonight)...

Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging:
http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/
http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74

I didn't exactly agree -
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/

Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) -
http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433

Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had
already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated
by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video -
http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before
all the editing that he talks about happened -
http://tinyurl.com/27kyht

January 2006 the VlogTheory list started -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after
Vloggercon 2006

I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and
Richard wrote a bit also.
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/
Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173
and later writes a definition of videoblogging -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771
(Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments
all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well)

It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after
Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was
left of the already sparse article.

So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's
one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later
all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o

Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes
within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser

As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I
just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off
to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before.

- Verdi

I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging
(including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE:

http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit

Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over.

Jan

On 4/30/07, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:
>
> It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is
> edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources
> are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this
> Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
> So we have to find MSM sources for that?
> Keep going.  We've only just begun.  We're going to have to be quite
> robust.
> Rupert
>
> On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
>
> - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
> - Edit it
> - Copy the code
> - Return to the original page
> - Edit it
> - Paste code
>
> :)
>
> XO,
> Jan
>
> On 4/30/07, Cheryl <cheryl.colan@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately
> see that.
> >
> > cheryl
> > www.hummingcrow.com
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade" <meade.dave@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > wow he's already undone it all ...
> > >
> > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to
> fight the
> > > good fight) :-)
> > >
> > > - Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> The Faux Press - better than real
> http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
> http://twitter.com/fauxpress
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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*.

Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http://
www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre.

In a small community, one person can hold disproportionate power just
by doing more than anyone else is prepared to.  It's a difficult
balance - you want people to lead, and get involved - but you don't
want them to do too much or their opinion dominates to the detriment
of other valid (but more quietly voiced) opinions.

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.

The ideal scenario when one person is wielding disproportionate power
is that the whole community makes their opinions heard - and when
there are differences of opinion as to a definition, as there are
here, a middle path is followed - a compromise is reached.

The people who want it all their own way will say that that's what
they're doing - that Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and
original research, and so they delete everything that's not sourced.
One group of purists wanted to delete the video blog entry completely
at one point, and it almost happened, which would have been absurd
IMO.  Richard BF blamed this proposed deletion on the messy
discussions in the entry to try and bolster his own point, which was
not true - the deletion was part of a wider semantic cleansing
program by people who wanted to strip down definitions relating to
blogging.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to get back into the
polarised discussions of whether it's a genre, a sub-genre, whether
it exists at all.

Let's have an entry that acknowledges the disagreements in a simple
paragraph or two, and moves on to embrace all sides of the
definition.  That will be a far more informative entry for people
wanting an authoritative reference.  But we won't get there if we
keep getting every addition deleted.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/




   On 1 May 2007, at 08:44, Michael Verdi wrote:
A little historical context (not complete, I need to sleep sometime
tonight)...

Adrian Miles has written much about videoblogging:
http://vogmae.net.au/content/blogcategory/26/47/
http://incsub.org/blogtalk/?page_id=74

I didn't exactly agree -
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2005/02/20/vlog-anarchy/

Adrian's response (reason #875 why Creative Commons kicks ass btw) -
http://vogmae.net.au/vlog/?p=433

Eight months before Patrick started videoblogging Richard BF had
already tried to shepherd a vlog entry on Wikipedia but was frustrated
by constant fighting. Check out this post by him from June 2005 -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1118369215 and the video -
http://tinyurl.com/2dd2dy This is what the article looked like before
all the editing that he talks about happened -
http://tinyurl.com/27kyht

January 2006 the VlogTheory list started -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vlogtheory - pretty much died out after
Vloggercon 2006

I did a couple of experiments (April 2006) on what a videoblog is and
Richard wrote a bit also.
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/06/experiment/
http://michaelverdi.com/index.php/2006/04/08/experiment-2/
Richard BF replies: http://www.kashum.com/blog/1144417173
and later writes a definition of videoblogging -
http://www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771
(Check out all of the discussion on these posts - about 120 comments
all told - for the most part these ideas didn't go over very well)

It seems Patrick got interested in the Wikipedia entry shortly after
Vloggercon 2006 and by July he had pretty much whacked down what was
left of the already sparse article.

So Meiser came along and put a lot of effort into the article. Here's
one of his early attempts: http://tinyurl.com/ysrk6q Three weeks later
all changes were gone - http://tinyurl.com/ywhq8o

Recently Patrick has been pretty good about reverting people's changes
within minutes. Check out his warnings to Meiser on his talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mmeiser

As I said at the beginning, there is much missing from this email. I
just put a little bit of this out there for those who would rush off
to tackle the wikipedia entry. Please look at what's been done before.

- Verdi





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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]

Thanks, Gena, Great post.

I'm glad Patrick has not deleted this time, just used Wikipedia's
proper markup for requesting changes according to his interpretation
of the rules.

As for the list of news sources, which (perhaps ironically) Patrick
has marked for removal, I guess we could replace it with a whole big
chunk of text which tells the story of how videoblogging has been
reported in the MSM with a LOT of footnotes, but I think it's more
elegant and useful to have a comprehensive list for those seeking
further information.  It tells a story in itself, and it's hardly a
link farm, which is what Wikipedia is trying to prevent by this
rule.  I think this use of the list, at this point in time, inhabits
an acceptable grey area.  But that's my opinion.

I'm going to do some work now!

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/


On 1 May 2007, at 05:38, Gena wrote:

Sorry I'm jumping into this a little late. I'd like to add my point of
view from a library student standpoint, particularly for PatrickD

Nobody owns information. If you chose to be a Shepard of the Video
Blog section then there are responsibilities beyond your or my opinion
on a topic.

Citation from an authorized and verifiable source is important. That
verification can come from a number of sources. This can include
traditional media. However even librarians (and those that hope to
work among them) understand the rapidly increasing flow of
information. We absolutely evaluate but don't restrict where good
information can come from.

For an quick example: Twitter. M$M (outside of the computer
publications) hasn't a clue about what Twitter is or its
functionality. If I had to write up a citation for Twitter there would
be no point in searching traditional media, although I would do that
as a matter of course. On the date of this post I'm not going to find
a Twitter book or manual.

What are the words, terms and concepts I need to understand? What is
the vocabulary? Can I find multiple source to verify that vocabulary?

I would also go to the source, i.e. the Twitter web site. I would look
for competitors or vendors with a similar service. I would seek out
and observe those people who would have a relationship with the
service or who would have experience. This could be professional or
highly advanced nerd or geek.

Next, I would look at affinity groups (there must be a Twitter group
someplace) and observe the posts for those persons who seem to know
what they are talking about. They could led me to a verifiable or
trusted source.

My point is that there is a process to verifying information. It is
not an exclusive "it can only come from one direction" process.
Information has a flow, a relationship to the people that use it. It
is organic not static. Course if you do it right there can be a kind
of rapture in crafting just the right citation.

Respectfully,

Gena
http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

OF COURSE!  How did i forget the amazing encyclopedic Fauxpress
Vlogpresskit??
It was late.  My brain was spongy from hand, foot and mouth disease.
Perhaps this is also the answer to the debate over the list of media
links.
If all those articles listed on Wikipedia are in the Press Kit - and
I'm sure they are - could we have instead have a small section with a
paragraph which describes the development of the media interest in
vlogging, and then link to the vlogpresskit for further reading?

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/


On 1 May 2007, at 11:15, Jan McLaughlin wrote:

I've a collection of links to all top notch articles about vlogging
(including both blog and MSM stuff) HERE:

http://del.icio.us/love_detective/vlogpresskit

Lots of cites from the NY Times and Heralds from all over.

Jan

On 4/30/07, Rupert <rupert@...> wrote:
  >
  > It's brilliant, isn't it - the idiocy of an online resource which is
  > edited by someone who says 'let's find a better source - blog sources
  > are frowned on', in response to me linking to a Search page of this
  > Group, which lists all the conversation around "What is vlogging?"
  > So we have to find MSM sources for that?
  > Keep going. We've only just begun. We're going to have to be quite
  > robust.
  > Rupert
  >
  > On 30 Apr 2007, at 21:55, Jan McLaughlin wrote:
  >
  > - Go to the previous version you wish to reinstate
  > - Edit it
  > - Copy the code
  > - Return to the original page
  > - Edit it
  > - Paste code
  >
  > :)
  >
  > XO,
  > Jan
  >
  > On 4/30/07, Cheryl <cheryl.colan@...> wrote:
  > >
  > > Yeah, how you revert to a previous version? I don't immediately
  > see that.
  > >
  > > cheryl
  > > www.hummingcrow.com
  > >
  > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Meade"
<meade.dave@...>
  > > wrote:
  > > >
  > > > wow he's already undone it all ...
  > > >
  > > > how does one undo his undo? (I'm all signed up and ready to
  > fight the
  > > > good fight) :-)
  > > >
  > > > - Dave
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >
  > --
  > The Faux Press - better than real
  > http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
  > http://twitter.com/fauxpress
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  >
  >
  >
  >

--
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, Amani. Go to "themes" and then just click on the theme you want. It's
really that simple.

Oh, yeah - the theme should be saved in the \wp-content\themes folder.

Good luck!

Cheers,
Carl Weaver

Carl Weaver
Photographer
http://www.carlweaver.com
http://www.camerasamurai.com
http://www.dcmetrostories.com - Stories about the people, places and events
in the DC Metro Area
http://nextlifeintheafternoon.com - A Journey Through Thailand

Where's the link back to the original blog site or video?

On Apr 30, 2007, at 12:19 PM, ahwfour_1027 wrote:

> It is important for us that we keep an open dialogue with
> podcasters and
> vloggers about the features we are adding and how the service will be
> improved in the future for any podcaster, be they producing audio or
> video programs.

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

wow i kinda like that

On 4/30/07, schlomo rabinowitz <schlomo@...> wrote:
>
>   Have you checked out Viddler?
>
> http://viddler.com
>
> Video commenting is really elegantly done over there.
>
> Schlomo
> http://schlomolog.blogspot.com
> http://hatfactory.net
> http://winkshow.com
>
> On 4/30/07, nathank000
<nathank000@...<nathank000%40fluidconsulting.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > Mark - I'm looking for his details for you now- if I can find them I
> > will let you know, last I heard he was working with these guys:
> > http://www.hostcast.com/website/index.htm
> >
> > In the meantime this raises an interesting question. I attended tho 06
> > vloggercon and I was impressed with the ability to comment within a
> > video. I am currently in the process of developing a service to serve
> > video, but we scrapped the plans to implement this feature as we felt
> > the screen size was too limiting, and most vloggers use the video in
> > conjunction with a blogging tool such as word press - making the video
> > commenting sort of redundant.
> >
> > The pros of having commenting within the context of the video is that
> > the video would be able to accept comments no matter where it was
> > embedded, and the comments would always be with it...
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
<videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com><videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "mark_raheja" <markraheja@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > couldn't easily track down will law's contact details, so i figure
> > > i'll just post this question here.
> > >
> > > at vloggercon 2006, will spoke about embedding [video] comments into a
> > > flash video file.
> > >
> > > will/group: what was the referenced app/software? can i review that
> > > demo again somewhere?
> > >
> > > please & thanks!
> > > -M
> > >
> > > t: 416.451.3640
> > > e: markraheja@...
> > > skype: mark_raheja
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://VlogDeathmatch.com
Vlog Deathmatch Music Video Challenge welcomes Irina Slutsky! :D

Current Lineup: (eMail BillC@... to join to the lineup)

     * Vergel Evans - Lx7.ca
     * Bill Cammack - ReelSolid.tv
     * Drew Olanoff - SCRIGGITY.com
     * Chuck Olsen - blogumentary.typepad.com
     * Adam Quirk - wreckandsalvage.com
     * Michael Verdi - michaelverdi.com
     * Bonny & The Bui Brothers - NoodleScar.com
     * Nathan Miller - bicycle-sidewalk.com
     * Becca Havens - missbhavens.blogspot.com
     * Erik Nelson - wreckandsalvage.com
     * Irina Slutsky - geekentertainment.tv


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Cammack" <BillCammack@...>
wrote:
>
> Sweet. Added. :)
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Quirk, Wreck & Salvage"
> <quirk@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm in.
> >
> > On 4/27/07, Bill Cammack <BillCammack@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The battle lines have been drawn in the vlogosphere. Use your vlog
> > > skills to make the ultimate music video the only way that matters --
> > > by videoblogging.
> > >
> > > http://vlogdeathmatch.com/
> > >
> > > Email BillC@ if you want to be involved!
> > >
> > > Current Lineup:
> > > Vergel Evans - http://Lx7.ca
> > > Bill Cammack - http://ReelSolid.tv
> > > Drew Olanoff - http://SCRIGGITY.com
> > > Chuck Olsen - http://blogumentary.typepad.com/
> > >
> > > DEADLINE TO SUBMIT: May 14, 2007
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bill C.
> > > http://BillCammack.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Adam Quirk
> > Wreck & Salvage
> > 551.208.4644
> > Brooklyn, NY
> > http://wreckandsalvage.com
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

IT's been happening for a few days now and I'm darned near the happiest girl
in the world.

Thanks, FireANT.

Jan

--
The Faux Press - better than real
http://fauxpress.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/fauxpress


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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/ >

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]

Ah yes,  the classic case of circular definitions.  That is repeating the
defined term within the definition itself.  This is the kind of writing that
my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big red
pencil.

Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom

   _____

From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog
Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry

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]

The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact
that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia.

You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to
help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out
information is instead worthless, look at the
page, "unverified", "disputed", etc and etc,

oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is
gone, no...wait, it's back....oh, nope its gone...oh, back again

how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back
and forth squalibling.....it's sad.....just sad.....

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Gosse" <hermit@...> wrote:
>
> Ah yes,  the classic case of circular definitions.  That is
repeating the
> defined term within the definition itself.  This is the kind of
writing that
> my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big
red
> pencil.
>
> Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom
>
>   _____
>
> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog
> Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM
> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
>
> 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]
>

I went over to Harvard last night for David Weinberger's talk about
his new book, Everything Is Miscellaneous.

One part of his talk was about Wikipedia and how it drives experts
away because of the need for citations for everything.  I hope I got
that right...  I've got his book and will read it to see if I can
better summarize what he was saying.  He had really funny pictures
that made it very clear....

I was extremely frustrated trying to add information on Wikipedia and
fought a long and hard fight to get the top definition the way I
thought it should be.


On May 1, 2007, at 9:21 AM, Heath wrote:

> The only thing this discussion has done for me, is confirm the fact
> that I would never want to contribute to Wikipedia.
>
> You know what's funny and sad in this, a tool that should be used to
> help someone, to guide someone, to give them a source to find out
> information is instead worthless, look at the
> page, "unverified", "disputed", etc and etc,
>
> oh, wait, those are gone, no they are back, ok, now everything is
> gone, no...wait, it's back....oh, nope its gone...oh, back again
>
> how could ANYONE get anything useful out of this bickering and back
> and forth squalibling.....it's sad.....just sad.....
>
> Heath
> http://batmangeek.com
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Gosse" <hermit@...> wrote:
>>
>> Ah yes,  the classic case of circular definitions.  That is
> repeating the
>> defined term within the definition itself.  This is the kind of
> writing that
>> my seventh grade English teacher would have crossed out with a big
> red
>> pencil.
>>
>> Irish Hermit ( a hermit that is Irish) aka Tom
>>
>>   _____
>>
>> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com]
>> On Behalf Of wallythewonderdog
>> Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2007 12:21 AM
>> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Video Blog Wikipedia Entry
>>
>> 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]
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

Hello Vloggers!
I haven't been on this list in a while but always impressed by all the
action and dialog here.

I am producing The 2007 NYC 48 Hour Film Project, this year and I
would love to see some NYC Vloggers represenging.

If you have not heard of this crazy filmmaking event, yet - where the
heck have you been? The 48HFP, is in it's 6th year and is now in 50
cities in the US and 11 countries abroad. This year's event will take
place June 15-17 and I am hosting a little gathering next week for
those in the NYC area who would like to find out more. Tuesday May 8th
from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's  Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street.

Hope some of you will make it.

Here are more details!

The 48 Hour Film Project is a wild and reckless weekend of filmmaking
mania, where teams of renegade filmmakers create short films at
break-neck speed, compete for prizes and a chance to participate in a
national filmmaking showdown!

Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's  Restaurant 143 First Avenue at
9th street Meet your local producer (that's me!) and get the scoop
from filmmakers who have participated in past competitions.

Find out how to form a team or join a team in need . We need talented
writers, Directors, DPs, actors, comedians, improvisers, class clowns,
producers, editors, musicians, sound engineers, makeup artists,
costume designers, friends, family, pets …you get the idea.

Thousands of filmmakers all over the world have participated in the
The 48 Hour Film Project. Professionals and amateurs alike love The 48
Hour Film Project for its focus on filmmakers' creativity and teamwork
skills and emphasis on "doing" instead of "talking."

All films will be screened theatrically in NYC and compete for a host
of awards given by industry professionals. Winners will be included in
screenings around the country and be invited to compete in national
filmmaking showdowns for great prizes. Last year's showdown winners
received a new Panasonic HD Camera package!

The sky is the limit as long as you can get the job done in 48 hours!

Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm
Paquito's Restaurant (outside in the patio!)
143 First Avenue at 9th street
New York, NY 10003-2943

walking distance from F,L,6, N,R
http://www.paquitosrestaurant.com
google map
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=143+First+Avenue&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a\
&om=1&z=16&ll=40.729487,-73.984981&spn=0.006586,0.014248&iwloc=addr


If you can't make this event but you still want to get involved join
the Yahoo! Group:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/48hourfilm-newyork/

or find us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2313798220


If you have any other questions feel free to email me directly at:
newyork@...


Thanks!

Mica Scalin

New York Producer, The 48 Hour Film Project
http://www.48hourfilm.com/

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

>  Patrick, in the comments of Richard's definition on his blog http://
>  www.kashum.com/blog/1156867771, agreed with him about genre.
>

Patrick most certainly didn't agree with Richard. Please re-read that
- it's a pretty good discussion especially in light of a world where
many of the people on YouTube call themselves vloggers and many many
many sites on the web now include video.

- Verdi


--
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs

A bunch of us are doing it down in DC. Look forward to seeing what NYC
does.

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "contactmica" <contactmica@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello Vloggers!
> I haven't been on this list in a while but always impressed by all the
> action and dialog here.
>
> I am producing The 2007 NYC 48 Hour Film Project, this year and I
> would love to see some NYC Vloggers represenging.
>
> If you have not heard of this crazy filmmaking event, yet - where the
> heck have you been? The 48HFP, is in it's 6th year and is now in 50
> cities in the US and 11 countries abroad. This year's event will take
> place June 15-17 and I am hosting a little gathering next week for
> those in the NYC area who would like to find out more. Tuesday May 8th
> from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's  Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street.
>
> Hope some of you will make it.
>
> Here are more details!
>
> The 48 Hour Film Project is a wild and reckless weekend of filmmaking
> mania, where teams of renegade filmmakers create short films at
> break-neck speed, compete for prizes and a chance to participate in a
> national filmmaking showdown!
>
> Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's  Restaurant 143 First Avenue at
> 9th street Meet your local producer (that's me!) and get the scoop
> from filmmakers who have participated in past competitions.
>
> Find out how to form a team or join a team in need . We need talented
> writers, Directors, DPs, actors, comedians, improvisers, class clowns,
> producers, editors, musicians, sound engineers, makeup artists,
> costume designers, friends, family, pets …you get the idea.
>
> Thousands of filmmakers all over the world have participated in the
> The 48 Hour Film Project. Professionals and amateurs alike love The 48
> Hour Film Project for its focus on filmmakers' creativity and teamwork
> skills and emphasis on "doing" instead of "talking."
>
> All films will be screened theatrically in NYC and compete for a host
> of awards given by industry professionals. Winners will be included in
> screenings around the country and be invited to compete in national
> filmmaking showdowns for great prizes. Last year's showdown winners
> received a new Panasonic HD Camera package!
>
> The sky is the limit as long as you can get the job done in 48 hours!
>
> Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm
> Paquito's Restaurant (outside in the patio!)
> 143 First Avenue at 9th street
> New York, NY 10003-2943
>
> walking distance from F,L,6, N,R
> http://www.paquitosrestaurant.com
> google map
>
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=143+First+Avenue&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a\
&om=1&z=16&ll=40.729487,-73.984981&spn=0.006586,0.014248&iwloc=addr
>
>
> If you can't make this event but you still want to get involved join
> the Yahoo! Group:
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/48hourfilm-newyork/
>
> or find us on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2313798220
>
>
> If you have any other questions feel free to email me directly at:
> newyork@...
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mica Scalin
>
> New York Producer, The 48 Hour Film Project
> http://www.48hourfilm.com/
>

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

--
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs

Awesome!
I know that vlogger Rob Parrish of www.hoppervideo.net
is a DC 48 Hour Film Project Alum.
Any other vlogger/ 48HFP alum out there?



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "jonny goldstein"
<spamjonny@...> wrote:
>
> A bunch of us are doing it down in DC. Look forward to seeing what NYC
> does.
>
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "contactmica" <contactmica@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Vloggers!
> > I haven't been on this list in a while but always impressed by all the
> > action and dialog here.
> >
> > I am producing The 2007 NYC 48 Hour Film Project, this year and I
> > would love to see some NYC Vloggers represenging.
> >
> > If you have not heard of this crazy filmmaking event, yet - where the
> > heck have you been? The 48HFP, is in it's 6th year and is now in 50
> > cities in the US and 11 countries abroad. This year's event will take
> > place June 15-17 and I am hosting a little gathering next week for
> > those in the NYC area who would like to find out more. Tuesday May 8th
> > from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's  Restaurant 143 First Avenue at 9th street.
> >
> > Hope some of you will make it.
> >
> > Here are more details!
> >
> > The 48 Hour Film Project is a wild and reckless weekend of filmmaking
> > mania, where teams of renegade filmmakers create short films at
> > break-neck speed, compete for prizes and a chance to participate in a
> > national filmmaking showdown!
> >
> > Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm @ Paqioto's  Restaurant 143 First Avenue at
> > 9th street Meet your local producer (that's me!) and get the scoop
> > from filmmakers who have participated in past competitions.
> >
> > Find out how to form a team or join a team in need . We need talented
> > writers, Directors, DPs, actors, comedians, improvisers, class clowns,
> > producers, editors, musicians, sound engineers, makeup artists,
> > costume designers, friends, family, pets …you get the idea.
> >
> > Thousands of filmmakers all over the world have participated in the
> > The 48 Hour Film Project. Professionals and amateurs alike love The 48
> > Hour Film Project for its focus on filmmakers' creativity and teamwork
> > skills and emphasis on "doing" instead of "talking."
> >
> > All films will be screened theatrically in NYC and compete for a host
> > of awards given by industry professionals. Winners will be included in
> > screenings around the country and be invited to compete in national
> > filmmaking showdowns for great prizes. Last year's showdown winners
> > received a new Panasonic HD Camera package!
> >
> > The sky is the limit as long as you can get the job done in 48 hours!
> >
> > Tuesday May 8th from 6-8pm
> > Paquito's Restaurant (outside in the patio!)
> > 143 First Avenue at 9th street
> > New York, NY 10003-2943
> >
> > walking distance from F,L,6, N,R
> > http://www.paquitosrestaurant.com
> > google map
> >
>
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=143+First+Avenue&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a\
&om=1&z=16&ll=40.729487,-73.984981&spn=0.006586,0.014248&iwloc=addr
> >
> >
> > If you can't make this event but you still want to get involved join
> > the Yahoo! Group:
> > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/48hourfilm-newyork/
> >
> > or find us on Facebook:
> > http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2313798220
> >
> >
> > If you have any other questions feel free to email me directly at:
> > newyork@
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Mica Scalin
> >
> > New York Producer, The 48 Hour Film Project
> > http://www.48hourfilm.com/
> >
>

Oh, Gena, if you got the chance to do this it would be beyond helpful.
I don't have any trouble flying to, staying in and traveling around a
city I've never been before all by my lonesome, but LA is the ONE US
city where it'll be made more complicated by the fact that I do not
know how to drive (yeah, yeah. I've heard it all before. Lessons begin
in June.) If it weren't for taxis I'd never get anyplace. If I pick
the wrong hotel I could end up $50 from anywhere I want to be.

I would be willing to go in for a rental with someone who doesn't mind
driving me with them everyplace.

I call shotgun.

Bekah (still hoping for vacation that weekend)
--
http://www.missbhavens.com



--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <compumavengal@...> wrote:
>
> Folks - The Hollywood section has made great improvements over the
> years. It was tre-skeezy a few years ago. Now it is, well, it is
> better than what it was.
>
> There are places to stay and not stay. How can I say this? Some of the
> places are "Hooker palaces" and some are just cheap seedy joints with
> a lot of fleas.
>
> If I get a chance I can head over and check them out. If I can find a
> place like the "Twin Palms" in SF we score but L.A. and by extension
> Hollywood is a little different.
>
> AFI is not accessible at night by public transport. You can get kinda,
> sorta close but it is a heck of walk you really don't want to make at
> night. You want to rent a car or a van if a bunch is heading to town.
>
> DO NOT TAKE A TAXI! Frigging bandits of a fraternal order of (*^(^&$%
>
> I really gotta get some sleep but I can put this on the agenda lists.
> of stuff to check out.
>
> Gena
> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David Howell" <taoofdavid@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am about to book my flight and hotel for Pixelodeon. For those that
> > are going, where are you staying?
> >
> > David
> > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com
> >
>

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.
Rupert

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

--
http://michaelverdi.com
http://spinxpress.com
http://freevlog.org
Author of Secrets Of Videoblogging - http://tinyurl.com/me4vs





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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]
>

The Tuesday May 1 FlashMeeting is starting at 5:00pm - 7:00pm PST
USA, 8:00pm - 10:00pm EST USA, 1:00am - 3:00am GMT (April 25th).

Enter through this link:

http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/fm/c04a3b-8259

You may also check the FlashMeeting page at
flashmeeting.cirne.com for future and past Videoblogging FlashMeetings at:

http://flashmeeting.cirne.com/index.php?title=Main_Page



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

To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a
blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with
a way to link to them.


On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:

>  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

--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com

I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has comments and
an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a
MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or
blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that "show" option).

It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store
video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using
YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is
valid).

If the definition is "video on a blog" - I think "blog" is generally
recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube isn't
one.

Does that make sense?

--
David King
davidleeking.com - blog
http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog

On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield <steve@...> wrote:
>
>   To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a
> blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with
> a way to link to them.
>
> On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> Steve Garfield
> http://SteveGarfield.com
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The current definition is erroneous,

"A Video blog, sometimes shortened to vlog,[1][2][3] is a blog that
comprises video footage...."

Video footage is unedited video straight out of a camera shoot.  A
videoblog is video that is usually edited and rarely unedited video
footage.

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

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield <steve@...> wrote:
>
> To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a
> blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with
> a way to link to them.
>
>
> On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:
>
> >  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
>
> --
> Steve Garfield
> http://SteveGarfield.com
>

I think the problem is that net video is a larger container than a
blog.  A flash video container can contain all the capabilities of a
blog and more indicated by the blip.tv Show Player and others.

What Steve Garfield states makes sense as capabilities required by net
video, but not the specific implementation in blog cms systems like
Wordpress, TypePad, Blogger, etc.  In other words, a videoblog is "in
reverse chronological order and often combine embedded video or a
video link with supporting text, images, and other metadata."  This
should not be restricted to traditional blogging applications and
include other implementations of the qualities in YouTube and other
systems.

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

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "David King" <davidleeking@...>
wrote:
>
> I'd sorta kinda agree, Steve. Youtube isn't a blog. Yes, it has
comments and
> an RSS feed. But youtube, in and of itself, isn't a blog. Just like a
> MySpace account isn't a blog (though you can use it for that), or
> blip.tvisn't a blog (though, again, it does have that "show" option).
>
> It's a gray area. Here's what I'd say: Youtube is a great place to store
> video - and you can dump those videos onto a blog. So I'd say that using
> YouTube to store videos for your vlog is valid (just like using blip is
> valid).
>
> If the definition is "video on a blog" - I think "blog" is generally
> recognized as a certain thing (blogger, wordpress, etc). And youtube
isn't
> one.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> --
> David King
> davidleeking.com - blog
> http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
>
> On 5/1/07, Steve Garfield <steve@...> wrote:
> >
> >   To me, videos on YouTube meet the definition of being video on a
> > blog. They are videos presented in reverse chronological order, with
> > a way to link to them.
> >
> > On May 1, 2007, at 11:24 AM, Michael Verdi wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > Steve Garfield
> > http://SteveGarfield.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>