Talk:Vlog/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Vlog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This is in regards to a message Stevegarfield wrote on Haakon's talk page. Steve made it seem like he needed my permission to edit the definition. I did regrettably give off that impression but I want to explain why I've been so strict regarding the article.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia. The keyword in that sentence is 'encyclopaedia'. Encyclopaedia topics must be notable. One way to determine if a topic is notable is if the topic has been written about by notable publications. If notable sources can't be found, it's possible the topic is a neologism.

The vlog article was nominated for deletion recently because it was believed to be a neologism. For this reason, it was necessary to go out and find notable sources for the definition and it's also the reason I was being so strict about the definition needing to be properly sourced. What wasn't clear perhaps is that I'm completely ok with people changing my edits, however, not at the cost of a) misquoting the source or b)removing the source and changing the definition without adding a new source to explain where you got your information.

Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. Wikipedia welcomes the contributions of experts, as long as these contributions come from verifiable (i.e. published) sources. Thus, if an editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, then the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

This is exactly what Steve has done and I salute him for it.

Wikipedia:No original research

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Perfection_is_not_required

---

Ehdrive 16:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to what I've written on my talk page in regards to my revert [1], I would like to apologise for being rude in the edit summary. Besides being always uncalled for, the edit summary is a channel in which it is hard to keep a conversation and defend oneself, and which cannot be edited. Steve did discuss his change here, I just didn't know it; sorry. Haakon 17:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ehdrive, I think we're all well aware of the policies on original research and verifyability. What I have had particular problem with is because you didn't feel this article "worthy" to be on wikipedia you clearly let your judgment shade your edits. Not just submitting it to a higher standard than other articles, such as the video podcasting article which you've ironically ignored, but chopping away at the article until almost nothing was left, and removing anything else anyone tried to contribute so that noone else could "struggle with it". It IS an imperfect process... and I don't hold any grudge, I think we have moved beyond the critical point... but I would urge you to make note of others attempting to edit... and let them speak.. It's OK to leave a visible comment in a page for a few days even a week such as "needs citation". I would also like to say one other thing. Just because you have "a source" does not make that source right... I realize the need for sources, but I beg of you to not embrace sources MORE than even truth. Just because something can be source (the PC Magazine definition is a perfect example) doesn't mean it's true. Your pursuit of a "worthy source" shouldn't be so high that contradicts ALL other sources and ALL those around you. Case in point you rejected my re placement of the word "blog" with the very definition of the word from the wikipedia blog article... "is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order"... You slashed it without even allowing ANYONE else to pass judgment... and I just wanted to make sure you understand WHY I did it. Specifically. A term should NOT be define... especially if it is a neologism by the very words contained in it. Case in point... read the definition YOU yourself wrote... to paraphrase "a videoblog... is a blog that includes video"... who in the world does that help!? Add on the other jargon about portmandeu and video, web log... and it further saps any clarity of the sentence. While it is gramatically correct I wonder if you would help me keep the meaning the same... but simplify and clarify the first sentence by referncing blog some other way... or somewhere else even... and possibly breaking it into two sentences. I otherwise have no problem with it. BTW, I too would like to appologize if I may have been in anyway terse or less than cordial... all I want is a more "collaborative" process where well intentioned edits are given a shot at being reworked rather than scrapped strait away... without anyone but one person seing them. And thank you for your efforts in keeping out link spam in the past. I hope you approve of my new attempt to provide legitimate external references that provide further reading and understanding. I'm now working on a) a bit of demographics... such as nielson stats on the popularity of vlogs, geographic demographics, widespread popularity of a podcasts or two as examples... and other such light statistical info. b) Someone pointed out the "reverse chronological order" is meaningless to most people. I think we need a "technical constructs of videoblogging" or some such to explain key points like WHY reverse chronological, WHY rss, what is an "enclosure" and why it's important, what an "embedded video" is, permalinks, comments... and other common or essential constructs to a vlog. I expect some of the jargon will come from the vlog article. If you have any ideas on where this is lacking please let me know. c) I will also be restating *why* vloggers cite Truffaut... and it will come directly from sources... because I think truffaut's quote is ESSENTIAL in understanding the core value of video blogging. It'll all be well sourced.. it's nothing that hasn't been discussed and written about a million times. Oh, and d) I will be citing more academic material for "further reading"... nothing special, just a few key thesis and research papers. Peace, --mmeiser 09:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you add something, make sure it's sourced. It's not other people's responsibility to source your work mmeiser. You have contributed a lot of Original Research and haven't provided sources when asked. That's why your work gets removed.

Plain and simple. If you add OR to the article it will get removed. Please reread that last sentence a few times.

The reason I removed the blog text is because it's better to link to the blog article than to copy and paste whatever the blog article happened to say at the moment you visited the page to copy its text. I think that's one of Wikipedia's advantages.

As for the links you've added, it would be great if you could take those articles and use them to contribute sourced content to the article's body. That would make my day. :) Ehdrive 16:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Only one thing to say Ehdrive... stop picking on the videoblogging article... why don't you go pick on the video podcasting article... you're not being "strict" you're being RUDE... and your logic is arbitrarily being applied to this article to the ignorance that there a 100,000 or more other articles that are infinitely worse. To put it quite simply you're being a TROLL in the true sense of the word. You sit here in judgement deleting ALL, ALL, ALL, empasis on the ALL new information by anyone. You've not let anyone add any new information to this article in over TWO years without trying to delete it atleast TWICE... by your definition NOTHING is worthy. AND YET HERE'S THE IRONIC PART... you complain and complain but you've never ONCE contributed ANYTHING USEFUL to the article! STOP IT... if there was an example of abuse you're it! 69.208.124.173 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Please read the Wikipedia help article on Verifiability for "my definition" of worthy information. After you're done reading that, please add worthy information to the article like I've requested from you over and over again every time you complain in an uncivilized manner. I won't hold my breath.Ehdrive 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey Mmeiser, ok so here's a summary for each item i reverted.
    • I removed the timeline events that were unverifiable or non notable.
    • I left in "Vloggerhood". You can't just remove something because you think it's "ridiculous." I'll allow you the chance to explain why Vloggerhood should be left out and why the other terminology should be left in. Please use the wikipedia guidelines to explain your arguement.
    • The genres section was removed because none of it is sourced. You did try to use a couple of sources but none of them referred to vlogs, only blogs. This section should perhaps belong on the blog article. For example, the "Conflict" genre contained a non notable link to a vlog and a link to a wiki article that doesn't even mention videoblogs. Once again, please read the definition of notability before trying to explain that your link was notable. It wasn't.
    • Books. How-to books are not very notable. Please read the wikipedia guidelines on books. Perhaps if you were to quote the book it would make sense to include it in the references section. On its own however, it's non notable.
    • News articles. None of these were sourced in the article. i don't understand why you would include references into an article if the article doesn't reference them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Please see the guidelines on "what wikipedia is not".
    • I did however like the additions of Uses of Podcasting under see also as well as the addition of categories. Keep up the good work.Ehdrive 21:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

mmeiser's response: There's really only one thing to add here... maybe you should spend a quarter of the time you do deleting and defending your deletes actually adding ONE SINGLE THING... just ONE thing... try it some time... to this article... also... you should read up on the spirit of collaboration on wikipedia... and then look up the word collaboration... and note that it involves actually bringing something to the table not simply sitting around and critiquing other people's input. If that doesn't give you some perspective... I encourage you to go tear appart the related "video podcasting" article, which quite frankly is ten times worse than this article. Quite frankly, I'm thinking of appealing to a moderation channel... perhaps you need to be bared from deletions on this article.

Also apparently I have to use email tracking to keep track of edits on this page. I'm to busy right now to go back over the entire last six months to see who elses changes you deleted.

BTW... do you find it funny to delete everyone's changes and keep adding back in "vloggerhood"... where's your partiality there? I see no sources referenced there. In a huge bit of controdictory irony you *require* me to show sources for why it should be deleted. By your own argument I'd challenge you to show sources on why you would like to delete every edit from now on. And perhaps for the time being you should change it to "vloggerhoodia" it would at least be funnier. :) --mmeiser 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One last thing... I'd also like you to note that in this talk page youre mentioned new 30 times, the bulk of this talk page deals with your questioning the "worthiness" of this article and it's editors. Since you apparently feel you're the expert on what is worthy to be on this article why don't you give us some examples by adding some worthy information since you clearly seem to thing NOONE else seems to be able to do it... and I'm not exagerating when I say noone... because you haven't let a single edit through without attempting to delete it atleast twice... and I'd be hard pressed... in fact challenge you to put for and document a single original addition to this article you've put forth. It may sound harsh... but those are the hard facts... you're trolling this article.--mmeiser 07:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please respond to my summary bullet points. You are trying to side track this conversation.Ehdrive 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: I found this quite useful and on point... as opposed to going into point by point discussion on your deletion of 90% of the article I'm going to quote from the "five pillars of wikipedia". You are fond on citing sources and telling people over and over about original research and citing sources as if we haven't read these sources, so perhaps you will take your own advices so strongly and read the following quotes and the article.

From Wikipedia Editing policy, Perfection is not required

It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged. However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible. One person can start an article with, perhaps, an overview or a few random facts. Another person can add a minority opinion. Someone else can round off the article with additional perspectives. Yet another can play up an angle that has been neglected, or reword the earlier opinions to a more neutral point of view. Another person might have facts and figures or a graphic to include, and yet another might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits. As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text may be added, and it may also be rewritten... and so on. During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. [...] With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without prior notice. If you make deletions, you should try to explain why you delete their contributions in the article talk page. This could reduce the possibility of reverting wars and unnecessary arguments. So, whatever you do, try to preserve information. Reasons for removing bits of an article include: * duplication or redundancy * irrelevancy * patent nonsense * copyright violations * inaccuracy (attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion) Alternatives include: * rephrasing * correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content * moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new) * adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced * requesting a citation by adding the [citation needed] tag

Notice no where does it suggest deleteing whole articles or everything in a document simply because it is not cited... Notice it does not say a timeline should be put on users to perfect additions before they are deleted.

It says rejoice in the schlock... This pillar of wikipedia is "perfection is not required"... this is EXACTLY what I've been saying over and over and over as you've litterally slashed the article down to nothing.

I don't know if this will get us closer to a resolution... but the simple fact of the matter is I CANNOT work on the article because you delete contributions before they can be improved on... for the past few weeks instead of working on the timeline all I've been able to do is reserect it... because you simply delete it over and over and over... How would you like to work with someone standing behind you who tore up what you were writting every time you picked up the pen. Use ^{[citation needed]} use it liberally... but DO NOT DELETE every single thing that doesn't have a reference, it is simply put ABUSE. And it's VERY discouraging of participation.

Thanks --mmeiser 08:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I used ^{[citation needed]} months ago when trying to clean up the article. I used it on every one of your edits for about a year until i realized that you just aren't the type of person to care about citations. From that moment of realization, I've always simply deleted your unsourced contributions and asked for sources in the edit summary knowing that leaving them in and placing ^{[citation needed]} beside them wouldn't bring about any sources. Once again, you have ignored my reasons for deleting each piece of content. These pieces were deleted over a period of 6 months as I requested and search

Sull, I want to thank you for advancing the discussion.

All my edits are done in good faith and I appreciate that you were polite in your edit summary. I've been trying to get feedback on the following edits. How-to books aren't considered very notable. Since the article was 75% unsourced, i thought i would do a general cleanup. I'd much rather see the books sourced in the article if they really do contain valuable information. I'm very much willing to comprimise however and I don't mind leaving them in as Further Reading.

The reason I didn't leave your revert alone is because the revert war going on isn't due to one edit on my part. It's due to a number of edits that occurred over the last few months. That's why i'd rather leave the article as it was before the edit war began and talk about putting things back in instead of the other way around.

I've summarized the rest of my edits below. The discussion entitled "Ehdrive and the definition" will also give you an idea of what has been discussed over the last few months.

• I removed the timeline events that were unverifiable or non notable.
• I removed the terminology section as it was unsourced.
• The genres section was removed because none of it is sourced. None of the existing sources referred to vlogs, only blogs. This section should perhaps belong on the blog article.
• News articles. None of these were sourced in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Please see the guidelines on "what wikipedia is not".

Thanks Sull! Ehdrive 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Response: Ehdrive, the ongoing deleting of acticle contents does not costitute "a number of edits"... you mispaint the picture... all you have done is delete sections of the article for the last two years... the very fact that I could revert to a version 6 months ago because no contributions were made is evidence of your ongoing deletion of ALL attempts at contribution. Indeed when I returned to find the article after six months it was a complete stub with a timeline of two items... two sentences as a definition... and failed in the basic encyclopedic premis to explain what videoblogging is.

Secondly... in response to your argument that I'm "sidetracking the conversation" I am absolutely not... your domimnance of this article have made you the central subject of this talk page... read the first header of the first section... that's your name up there and it's a testament to your strong arming this article... this IS and has constantly been in the long history of the article the "issue". It was before I started working on this article, and in fact is the reason why others have asked me to contribute to this article... because you'd chopped it down to a stub and pushed it for deletion... and again, you have returned it to a stub. I do not claim that I'm right about any particular contribution, nor that the article is perfect, it is in fact not... my pleading is that you find more positive ways to make contributions and play nice with others. Even if at this point you may not be happy with me do not hold a grudge against everyone. There have been a heck of a lot of willing, hard working, and well meaning contributors whom you've simply turned away. You have in fact turned away 100% of all contributor (except for of course me)... by reasonable deduction you must realize not all these people nor all these edits are without merit.

Finally, you accuse me of being rude... I have spoken strongly here, maybe even my frustration with you has shown through or run bare, but I challenge you to point out instances of rudeness... if you can point out these instances I will apoligize. I have in fact accused you of trolling... perhaps my harshest words... but this is not inaccurate... please go read the trolling page... deletion trolling... it is the ongoing repeated deletion of large parts of or an entire article. Do you honestly believe you're lack of contribution and deletion of every single other contribution does not bear resemblance to deletion trolling? The ONLY difference that I cling to with hope... is I cling to the hope you still edit this article in good faith... but since you have attempted to have it deleted once, and have made no contributions ever I'm really strugling to see any good faith in your work here.

Even at this hour when you threaten me quite improperly I might add with blocking do to of all things vandalism... (actually that is a bit ironic as I'm the last person trying to contribute to this article you have not driven off). Anyway, this is clearly not vandalism, this is not even content dispute... and therefor not a blockable issue. I am however if this content resolution dispute does not move forth in a positive manner with you agreeing to make good faith additions to the article going to escalate it to a user dispute... specifically I will present evidence, evidence I've presented thouroughly here that you you're deleting of this article is in fact not made in good faith... and that you have become even if you were not always a delete troll.

Please... if you have any other issue with me... my "rudeness" or some proof that I am a mere vandal please do let me know. I do expect though my long history of attempts to work with you and contribute to this article would seem to suggest otherwise. I am not partial to reviewing my faults... but right now the only faults I can find is my lack of time to fight with you over every single contribution... and my biggest fault... my simple wordiness which I'm well aware of. :)

Please prove to me you are not a delete troll... that you wish to in good faith make this a better article article by contributing substatial material to it with some proportionality to the vigor in which you've deleted substantial material... and do feel free to challenge me if I have been as you say rude or a vandal. You will have to do this anyway if this dispute escalates. --mmeiser 06:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One last thing... if we can move beyond this, I would hope that you would help me on sourcing the timeline... there are several new items of importance and many past items I was hoping to properly cite... such as 1) important events regarding youtube the largest video sharing timeline... 2) statistical information on the growth of videobloging from nielsens, mefeedia, feedburner, and others (probably do it's own section, but I'll settle for timeline information), 3) apple's release of the Apple TV which specifically supports and has guidelines for videoblogging, and 4) items pertaining to the growth of videoblogging as an industry / business sector... One thing is for sure... while the article is stagnant and does not reflect it videoblogging has progressed from hobbying and is well on its way to an industry... debating these finer points endlessly is fine... updating the timeline with new and verifying old sources is why I first reverted the article... but I cannot keep pulling edits out of the trash every every time I want to work on improving the article... this is what I would much rather be focused on... maybe if you still have a want to improve this article and have a good faith interest in making this article better you would help me track down some of these references or find some other way to contribute. This is my sincereist wish. I hope we can resolve this dispute without wasting the time and energies of some of the best contributors on wikipedia. Let's ask submit this FULL article with requests for improvement... not request for moderation... and then set about following through on them. I think I have proven my willingness to do tremendous research and hard work in the past but I cannot do it alone, (as your deletions while admitedly right much of the time, have none the less been less then helpful and encouraging to would be collaborators) and I especially cannot do it fighting you every inch of the way. --mmeiser 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mmeiser, I didn't see this reply when i made my latest post about using ^{[citation needed]} etc. I don't want it to seem like I'm still being hostile because I didn't see any of your posts in this section of the talk page and I am very interested in working positively together. I'm excited about collaborating. I haven't read through everything your wrote here but I think we're both starting to get a positive outlook on things and I feel that things are moving in a good direction. I'll have a chance to read through everything and properly reply another day. Cheers. Ehdrive 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Replied on Mmeiser's [talk page]. Ehdrive 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I requested feedback on the article. Click here to see the request.

Any additional input is welcome. Ehdrive 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, this is not the best time for request for feedback. That request for feedback is for new articles... thsi is not a new article... it is an very old article... there are other ways to request feedback, I'd be happy to pusue them as opposed to moderation... but before we do such I'd request that you reserect what you've deleted so we can get feedback on how to improve that as well. You have in fact had thousands of pieces of feedback for improvement... by deleting every one of them rejected all feedback. I can see that feedback specifically from seasoned wikipedia editors could give new perspective... but if it is not on the material which you deleted it can hardly be the sort of critical advice we need. --mmeiser 06:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• This content needs to be properly sourced before it is reinserted into the article. Ehdrive 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlogosphere^{[citation needed]}

Meaning: Vlogosphere is the collective term encompassing all vlogs as a community or social network. Derivative of Blogosphere.^{[citation needed]}

Usage: "I found quite a few cat videos while browsing around the vlogosphere."^{[citation needed]}

Vlogger^{[citation needed]}

Meaning: One who videoblogs. Derivative of "blogger".^{[citation needed]}

Usage: "I met several vloggers with whom I had become acquainted through the internet."^{[citation needed]}

For more information related to Video blog terminology please visit the list of blogging terms.

• I removed the Common genres section from the article. The quote in the introduction has to do with blogs and doesn't mention video blogs. Also, none of the genres are properly sourced. If this section is to be reinsterted, everything needs to be properly sourced. Personally, i don't feel that this section belongs in this article. I've placed the original content below... Ehdrive 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

While there are many distinct uses and genres for videoblogs it is important to note that the majority are individual and personal.^{[citation needed]} For extended research on genres related to videoblogging please visit BROG, the Blog Research on Genre project^[1].(this "project" has nothing to do with videoblogs)

• Personal - Vlogs documenting the author's life, the recounting daily experiences, stories from their past, or the airing of their opinions on various topics.^{[citation needed]}
• Activism - Vlogs expressing author's personal views of political consequences at the local level.
• News - Vlogs covering news events.^{[citation needed]}
• Collaborative (also collective or group) - Vlogs with a collaborative nature.^{[citation needed]}
• Citizen journalism - Vlogs "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information"^{[citation needed]}
• Conflict (see war blog) - Vlogs covering an armed conflict 1st hand, i.e. Alive in Bagdad, whom recieved distinction at the 2006 Vloggies^{[citation needed]}
• Digital divide (aka. bridge vlog) - Vlogs covering a culture, usually a developing world, not for people within that culture but to give people outside that culture insight. As such many bridge vlogs are in English or another common language.^{[citation needed]}
• Screencast - Vlogs demonstrating software or webservices through the recording of onscreen actions, usually presented with voiceover naration^{[citation needed]}
• Political - Vlogs discussing political issues.^{[citation needed]}
• Environmental - Vlogs discussing environmental issues, nature, and natural history.^{[citation needed]}
• Exquisite corpse - Vlogs where each concurrent part in a narative is shot by a different author^{[citation needed]}
• Media - Vlogs analyzing television, documentaries and other mass media.^{[citation needed]}
• Entertainment - Vlogs producing "shows" or short films.^{[citation needed]}
• Re-vlog - Vlogs promoting videos from other videoblogs or third parties.^{[citation needed]}
• Movlog (aka. mobile video blog) - Vlogs updated via mobile video phone^{[citation needed]}
• Educational - Schools and universities using vlogs as a teaching and creative medium.^{[citation needed]}
• Behind the scenes - Vlogs showcasing backstage activities of film production or other arts and skills.^{[citation needed]}
• Tutorial - Vlogs offering advice, demonstrations, how-to's, and tutorials.^{[citation needed]}
• Travel - Vlogs serving as a travelogue, exploring different places around the world.^{[citation needed]}
• Religious - Vlogs discussing religious topics.^{[citation needed]}
• Magazine type or lifestyles - Vlogs discussing lifestyles and hobbies in a television magazine format.^{[citation needed]}
• Assignment-based - Vlogs consisting of assignments.^{[citation needed]}
• Vlog Anarchy - Vlogs covering all or multiple genres.^{[citation needed]}
• Business - Vlogs created by businesses for external marketing or internal business communications.^{[citation needed]}
• Deaf vlogs - Vlogs used by members of the Deaf community to be able to blog in their native or preferred sign languages, as opposed to spoken/written languages. Issues are usually related to some aspect of deafness from a cultural, social and pathological view. These Vlogs use the medium of video to be able to communicate messages, posts, and other ideas through a sign language.^{[citation needed]}

I have been accused several times of not contributing to the article. I felt the need to highlight my contributions. I am not looking to compare or show off but mearly show that my edits are in good faith and to hopefully allow people to view my contributions in more positive light.

• I created the references section and sourced the definition:
  • 17 August 2006, Edit Summary: (corrected and sourced the definition, cleaned up and corrected the name section. videoblog is not a portemanteau of video and log.)
• Asked Steve Garfield to source his Timeline event then helped him properly reference it in the article
  • 31 August 2006, Edit Summary: (wikified the reference to steve, woohoo, sources!)
• I searched and found a better source for the definition
  • 7 September 2006, Edit Summary: (rv def back to stevegarfield's edit - not sure why it was replaced, the other source didn't relate to the text)
• I researched the use of the term vlog and initiated the request to have the article be renamed to Video blog
  • 21 February 2007, Edit Summary by GTBacchus: (moved Vlog to Video blog: per move request; see talk page for discussion) Ehdrive 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the underconstruction template. I thought it would be good to leave up for a couple of days because the article was mentioned on the Yahoo Videoblogging group. It's big and ugly and I already hate it. If anyone wants to take it down go ahead. :P It might be useful though for people who aren't aware of what's going on. Ehdrive 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a dispute about the value of different sections of the article. 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

• Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• This content needs to be properly sourced. Ehdrive 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Well, what I see there is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

History Timeline

• I can't find a reliable source that states that Adrian Miles' post below was the first vlog post. Ehdrive 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I also can't seem to find articles that state that mefeedia is an important development in the history of the video blog. Nor does it have it's own wikipedia article. Ehdrive 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Original research. Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Uses of video blogs

• None of the genres are properly sourced. Ehdrive 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Links

• These articles add a lot more depth to this article and it DEFINITELY needs it because it's not progressing and "flushing out" it's stagnating mmeiser 09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• If these links contain any usefull information (which I'm sure they do), that information should be included within the article. Links are not a subsitute for content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Ehdrive 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. We shouldnt have a link list. BUT these are great articles to pull info out of...then they can be in the References section. Jaydedman 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• I do think Ehdrive deleted too many external links from this version [2] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times" 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal" & "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only if they were worked into the article. Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dictionary definitions don't belong in the article. Their mention can be worked into the article and sourced however as it stands, it doesn't read well. Some of the History Timeline events are unsourced and not all sources relate the event to video blogs in any way. The section 'Uses of video blogs' is original research. In the External Links section, not all external links are mentioned in the article (e.g. Node101) and the news articles consitute a link farm.