Talk:Blog/Archive 5

message: QUESTION: Why classify these writers as “journalists” or “reporters?” One, by definition they are not. Two, bloggers do not desire to be, nor do they pretend to be such. Yes, some reporters’ blog but not all bloggers are reporters. Hence, it is intellectually inconsistent. These are writers and diarists, to be sure. But they neither report the news (they only link to it, copy it, comment on it) nor do they work for news organizations, from Mother Jones to The New York Times to the Weekly Standard, to ABC or CNN. Yet, these news organizations practice blogging, but not all bloggers are “reporting.” Furthermore, the very way one writes a blog, the ethos, pace, nature, is wholly separate from journalism. Blogging is its own medium, its own media, and only when categorized as such has it reached maturity.
*I agree to your views because personally as a blogger I do not consider myself as a journalist Cowie1337 00:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why classify these writers as “journalists” or “reporters?” 

message: Teachers and academics are beginning to hook into the power of blogs as teaching and learning tools - not least because Blogs lend themselves to social constructivist and situative modes of delivery.  It's also a sign that teachers are increasingly seeking to cater to a new generation of learners, the so-called 'digital natives' for whom social software is an integral part of everyday life.  A good example is the extensive use of blogs and wikis by Victoria Davis at Westwood Schools in the US.  She uses a central wiki to summarise the learning of the group and links out from this to the individual blogs of her class members.  In this way the students can learn from sharing their work and their research outside the classroom and it's worked as a way to engage the learners and encourage them to take a more active, participative role.  Does this merit a new section or should it be included under 'Types of Blogs?'Verylikeawhale 13:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Educational Uses of Blogs 

message: I keep thinking the popularity of blogs among most people (that just keep a diary) reminds of the 'personal home page' phenomenon of mid-late ninetees. Even if they are technically different, most 'bloggers' use them quite similarly as 'home page' authors used and still use their own, for personal stuff, personal thoughts. I wonder if a section with that connection should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.76.99.106 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 May 2006  (UTC)
::I think myspace has overtaken blogs AND personal homepages as the high school lockers of the internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.2.242.169 (talk • contribs) .
:I like the idea... but rather than a new section, how about adding a passage to the "Precursors" section? · rodii · 20:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "home page" boom of the mid-late ninetees 

message: I was wondering if the user pages on wikipedia was on the way to become more like blogs  , since they are much like them execpt that the editing options are more limited than blogs . I was also wondering if the wikipedia admins plan to make the user pages editing options just as numerious as the options found on any normal blogs eg. editing bacground , musics , sounds , images , video , downloads and a list of friends also on wikipedia user:pages and maybe external friends list.
:No. User pages are there to help us build an encyclopedia, not to become myspace. · rodii · 22:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs on wikipedia 

message: Is anyone here interested in re-writing this to WP:GA or WP:FA standards? Computerjoe's talk 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making into a FA/GA 

message: Should this artical be mergered with online diary?—Preceding unsigned comment added by WAH (talk • contribs) 
I don't think it should, not at first glance, anyway. An online journal is a different genre altogether from blogs. I am writing my thesis on blogs as genre right now and will come back and help on this topic with sources, edits, etc. I can also explain more about why online journals, which are an ancestor of blogs, should not be merged and conflated with blogs. They should remain two different entries, but maybe have a "see also" link between them when mentioning in the re-written blog entry that one of its ancestors is online journals. But, English usage does change, and if all online journals take on the same features as blogs, with the key feature being frequent posts presented in reverse chronological order, then we might have to reconsider. --Mark.d.anthony.sr 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from other locations on this page

message: This article really needs sources, please add them or  or  when required Computerjoe's talk 16:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 1996 date conflicts with October 1998 date in Xanga entry.
:Links? Computerjoe's talk 09:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: This paragraph uses Merholz's own website as a source:
: The term "weblog" was coined by Jorn Barger on 17 December 1997. The short form, "blog," was coined by Peter Merholz. He broke the word weblog into the phrase "we blog" in the sidebar of his weblog in April or May of 1999. [2] "Blog" was accepted as a noun (weblog shortened) and as a verb ("to blog," meaning "to edit one's weblog or to post to one's weblog").
Does anyone else find this to be problematic?  If an independent secondary source cannot be provided to verify this, I am afraid the mention of Merholz should be removed.  RFerreira 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the coinage, with citations as follows: a) corrected Internet Archive link (these seem to expire or disappear randomly, alas); b) :Jason Kottke attestation; c) a recent print citation from :The Economist. There's also a book We've Got Blog and other places. Oddly, the writers of We Blog did not acknowledge Merholz (whose article was recently deleted on the same basis). --Dhartung | Talk 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of the word "blog"

message: Hello all, yesterday, I had made an edit which was something like:
Blogs As Money Making Tools: 
  
Now-a-days, there are a large number of people who have started to use blogs as money making tools.   
Blogs have a very simple and common business model to make money. The authors of the blogs, create a place where a large number of people come. This kind of place is perfect for advertising. So the author of the blog puts up some advertisements and starts to cash-in on the “traffic” or blog popularity he/she gets.   
   
This is the exact same way a large number of websites make money. However, more people opt to blog because it is much more easier to create and maintain blogs. The above explanation over simplifies the process. When using you blog to make money, you have to think about getting people to come visit you blog, making your blog popular etc. All this takes a little work. There are some websites on the Internet, that give you an idea about the complete process and how you must go about making money from your blog. One such very good resource is “How to make money online bogging?”
One of the administrators, Gwernol deleted my edit saying that "link to money making scheme". I was asked by him later to post this here. I think it would be a good idea to plead my case and say why I insist that this section be added. 
Firstly, I ask all of you to please look at the link. It is NOT a money making scheme. I am from India. The site indiahowto.com is very popular there and they do not run "cheap money making schemes". 
I understand that you would like to maintain high standards of wikipedia and I too do not have any intention of spamming wikipedia. Gwernol, suggested that I am trying to promote "my website" through wikipedia. Even if I am, please take a look at the link. It takes the wikipedia user to a "quality" article that gives much more information about the subject. It does not ask for money or a sign up or anything. It just provides free information. There is a section where the author jokes about the people who start blogs giving him links. But that is an Indian context joke about "Guru Daskhina" It has no serious intent.  
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You cannot explain "How to obtain blog links?" and "How to get blog traffic?" here. These kind of things are not to be put in encyclopedias. However, if you site good article outside wikipedia, that provides quality information, that should not be a problem right? So, please re-view my addition as i have not spammed. I have genuinely added more content. I don't mind going into more details in my edit however, this will not fit the context of the encyclopedia.
Thank you.
:Hi!  First off, thanks for spending some of your valuable time in an effort to help Wikipedia.  I believe I can speak for the whole community in thanking you for your time.  However, there are a few problems with your edit.  First, your edit doesn't adhere to such Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  I suggest taking a look at these links, so as to get a better feel of what type of edits Wikipedia deems as valid.  You use statements such as "This kind of space is perfect for advertising", "All it takes is a little work", and "One such very good resource is..."  These statements are written in an unencyclopedic tone and as, such inappropriate for the article.  Furthermore, the link you provided is a personal website, not a reputable computer science or advertising stragegies journal; also, you don't use the source to back up any of your statements.  While I welcome you to contribute, I fear that your efforts will go for naught if you don't read the policies regarding editing, as your edits will be reverted.  If you have any other questions or comments on this issue or anything else, please feel free to contact me again hoopydinkConas tá tú? 04:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This person has been spamming Wikipedia with links to indiahowto.com all over the place, under various anonymous IP addresses. Ignore his disingenuous arguments above, which fall under Standard Spammer Argument 6 ("but it is a very good resource")--next up would be "but other links like mine are permitted to stay"; his links are spam and I have been removing them and warning him, and will continue to remove them. · rodii · 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (a little offtrack)Isn't abuse of Adsense spoiling the Web?
--Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, which held its ground 07:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggesting..

message: I came to wikipedia today looking for information on more formal blogs.  I.e. how corporations are using blogging, how governments are using blogging.
It's not here.
8<
Thanks for input, it is a required addition...-)--Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, which held its ground 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more on government and corporate blogging 

message: Was really interested in comments on Rathergate and how blogging broke through into the mass media. However I feel this section needs an update to show how the blogosphere has impacted on the tone, personality and authority of more established, mass media properties. E.g. The Guardian newspaper blog in the UK has made a virtue of giving their columnists a blog voice with a tone and personality different from that in their printed counterparts. Even the venerable children's TV show Blue Peter (about to enter its 50th year!) has changed it's tone and personality by giving it's presenters their own video blog voice instead of a single, editorialised 'team' voice.  
Blogs are taking the cult of the celebrity even further than previously seen in mass media 'reality' shows. We now read, see and hear correspondants own reactions to events around the world. 
I think a few worked examples of this phenomenon are required here.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Transamazonian (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more on the relationship between personal voices and broadcast 

message: Okay, here's a to-do list before we get this to a GA standard:
#Merge with online diary
#Source as many statements as possible and  unsourced ones (especially history)
#Reword/merge/split up section titles like 'How blogs are made'
#Reword and expand Blog popularity
Anything else? Computerjoe's talk 20:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't really link to blogs under blog popularity. Blog popularity should be about how blog's popularity is measured and gained. This page may prove useful for you. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List 

message: ;This sentence::The Iraq war saw both left-wing and right-wing bloggers taking measured and passionate points of view that did not reflect the traditional left-right divide.
appears to be a self contradiction.  If it does not reflect the left-right divide, then the bloggers should probably not be characterized with the term left-wing and right-wing.  aCute 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure it is a contradiction. Its saying that people who before were identified with a particular viewpoint moved to a more nuanced position, due to the nature of the war. That's not contradictory. Also your edit doesn't seem to be a great improvement: I don't know that its accurate to say that what has resulted is a multi-axis political culture, particularly the very specific one you chose to use as illustration. You at least need a specific source to verify this claim. I've copy edited it and removed the illustration; points of view is the correct plural by the way.
"In 2002, Jerome Armstrong's friend and sometime partner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga began DailyKos. "
This is why I hate the word partner. Business partner? Website colaborator? Tonsil hockey partner? --Gbleem 21:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not just say "Armstrong and Moulitsas founded DailyKos" without the needless details? There's a perfectly good article where those details can go. I wish people would realize this more often. --Dhartung | Talk 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence self-contradiction: left-right 

message: I'd like to question the inclusion of Kibo as an early blogger. In the early and mid '90s he was certainly an important figure on the internet, but mostly for Usenet, especially back when Usenet was still a more important force in the internet than the web. Kibo was not in the first wave of users to set up personal websites, in fact I recall some dozen other Kibologists had websites up before Kibo himself. His website was (and is) amusing, but the meat of it was an archive of his Usenet posts, and I don't recall it ever being in blog form. -- Infrogmation
:If I'm not mistaken, didn't Kibo have some sort of diary in a reverse chronological order? That would make it a blog, surely? Computerjoe's talk 19:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. 1997. Computerjoe's talk 19:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kibo

message: There's really no significant difference between citizen journalism and blogs, as 'citizen journalism' sites are really just blogs that random people just set up, primarily more as an editorial forum for their own point of view and less to actually report the news. Calling this 'journalism' is actually quite a bit of a stretch. So I'm thinking that the best approach here would be to merge the citizen journalism article as a subsection into this article, since the sites are essentially just blogs anyway. Dr. Cash 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. There is a clear difference between citizen journalism and blogs. Dr. Cash may not understand the difference, but the Poynter Institute and the Project for Excellence in Journalism -- two of the leading institutions promoting journalism in the United States -- clearly do understand it. --Sheldon Rampton 21:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge with [[Citizen journalism]]?

message: I don't think this really merits its own article, but the content might be useful in this one, or a sub-article I haven't seen yet. If a regular editor of this article wants to include some of it (or wants not to) then that's great, otherwise I might have another look in a couple of days. --Cherry blossom tree 22:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sent it to AfD. Computerjoe's talk 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Indian blogosphere: About Indian bloggers]] 

message: While I was browsing through the article (which is otherwise a nice overview), one particular paragraph under "Blogging and the mass media" caught my eye as a potential problem. Specifically, it's this paragraph:
Bloggers' credibility problem, however, can be an advantage for the bloggers and for the mainstream journalists who take an interest in them. News organizations are sometimes reluctant to tell stories that will upset important people. But when bloggers or activists make sensational claims, then they become stories themselves, and journalists can use them as cover for reporting the underlying scandals.
I see two potential issues here. The first is one of a NPOV issue in the allegation that "news organizations are sometimes reluctant" to report a particular story for fear of offending "important people." Obviously a statement like that needs some form of citation, or it's a personal opinion, and thus original research. 
The other issue has to do with the logic of the paragraph. Even if we disregard the suppression allegation, the paragraph displays a lack of understanding of the news cycle and principles of reporting. Most outlets would love a juicy scandal story -- they sell papers. The problem is that journalistic ethics (fair, neutral, accurate and evenhanded) and media law (libel in particular) play a big part in developing and publishing a story. In other words, if a news outlet can't run a story due to legal concerns, then they're not going to be able to use bloggers "as cover" to make an end run around libel law (comes back to the qualified privilege under the law).
Rather than just rewriting it myself and risk having someone subsequently revert back, I wanted to try to establish some kind of consensus first. So if any of you have any suggestions for how best to edit it, or arguments in favor of it remaining as is, please do share. JEJoyce 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/Clarification Issue

message: I Think there is a mistake in the paragraph Blogging was used to draw attention to obscure news sources. For example, bloggers posted links to traffic cameras in Madrid as a huge anti-terrorism demonstration filled the streets in the wake of the March 11 attacks. Since the purely anti-terrorist demonstration of day 12 was widely covered by the mainstream media and the Government (actualy the governement was leading it and pushing it's slogan "Con la Constitución"...It makes sense to think that blogs, and pages like indymedia played a more imortant role next day, 13-M, when protests were held to question the Governments insistance that it was ETA and not the Jihadist terrorists who were behind the attacks. I would modify the paragraph, but since I never heard of Bloggers linking to traffic cameras in madrid I rather wait...If somebody has any info please reach me at my discussion page.
--Varano 17:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madrid 11-M 

message: The article is riddled with assumptions of the blogosphere being entirely US based.  It also, in numerous places assumes that the reader is from the USA too. So I award this article an LGS tag.--Ordew 11:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too US / western world focussed