Talk:Blog/Archive 3

message: Am I the only one who reads the History section and wonders whether it was written by bloggers who imagine the blogosphere (and by extension themselves) to be far more important and influential than it really is?  I get the impression that if blogs had been around 15 years ago this article would be crediting them with the downfall of Communism, the end of Apartheid, the ouster of Maggie Thatcher, and maybe even putting Hubble into orbit. JAQ 11:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Congratulatory History? 

message: Are people still looking for input, or can I remove the listing? Dan100 (Talk) 20:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
*In light of the fact that the sole advocate of the "weblog = a web application" position has ended his crusade , I think we can remove the RfC listing. Tverbeek 17:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: This new section reads like a proposal for how blogs could be used, or maybe an analysis of something that a few people are doing, rather than a description of a common, existing type of blog.  (I also wonder if the external link in the middle is self-promo.)  Any disagreement? Tverbeek 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partner (collaboration on multi-section documents) 

message: Proposed merge because the term is better covered as a section of weblog. --Christopherlin 02:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-blog/multi-blogging 

message: I hate to feel like I'm being possessive, just because I was the one who started going nuts on this minor subcategory, but did anyone catch when and why ACSblog was added as an influential blog?  Further, is there support for its inclusion in this list?  Technorati rankings and similar ratings of the "most popular" law blogs always include the others, including Volokh, Howard's How Appealing, etc.  Is this non-POV, just site-plugging by an ACS member or fan?  ACS is the American Constitution Society, a self-described progressive alternative to the Federalist Society, q.v., which Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was not a member of.  ACSblog.org is also, as far as I can tell, currently down.  :)  --Eh Nonymous 20:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, nevermind, it's working now.  But, the rest of my question stands. --Eh Nonymous 20:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal blogging 

message: Besides blogs and wikis what other formats, templates are there?... Or what other formats, templates are new?... Or what other formats, templates are being developed that might even replace blogs, wikis?... dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 07:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other formats, templates besides blogs, wikis 

message: The subsection on medical blogs mentions blogs "that deals with actual patient cases." Can we have a link (in the article or here) or explanation or something? Bondegezou 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical blogs 

message: Blogorrhea -A portmanteau of "blog" and "logorrhea", meaning excessive and/or incoherent talkativeness in a weblog.
I always thought that this was a portmanteau of "blog" and "diarrhea" (also spelt as "diahorrhea")... Meaning pretty obvious...
Even if that's not the origin, I think it's a commonly assumed definition.
-- Lucanos 22:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogorrhea - Alternate meaning 

message: Could we perhaps remove all external links to examples of blogs from this article? The few that are notable and worth linking have articles we can link, and the others are just non-notable blogs people wanted to promote and added in. What's more, we shouldn't be putting external links outside the external links section except for references, which these aren't. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: YES. We should remove all of the examples. Most of them are relatively unknown blogs. As long as we put up with some of them, people will continue to use this article as free advertising. Rhobite 06:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice timing, thanks. I've just done a major purge. Now if we all join in in keep this article clean this might not have to become a monthly chore. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 06:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: The intro to this article is rather long, and pushes the table of contents down the page to the point where it is not immediately useful.  Perhaps this should be reorganized? Thesquire 06:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Formatting 

message: There are a large number of categories of blogs, with most categories having very little text.  If there is no objection, I plan on consolidating a number of the categories to create tighter and easier to read article.  Thesquire 06:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I support keeping blog and political blog split, as well as consolidating and removing some of the cruft from this article. Good work. Rhobite 01:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally managed to catch Funchain when it was up, and couldn't immediately see any difference between its blogs and a normal blog, so I'm removing FriendBlogs as a category. Thesquire 19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Formatting 

message: According to the article: "Ham radio also had logs called "glogs" that were personal diaries made using wearable computers in the early 1980s."
Wearable computers in the 80's? "Glogs"? Via ham radio? Is any of this true?? Korny O'Near 18:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking the history of the CyberLog and "glog" entry shows it was posted anonymously by 24.103.60.117 on 1 January 2003.  Since then it has been transmogrified by further anonymous editors, and it seems the original meaning has been lost.  I've read through some of the hyperlinks in the last 24 hours, and much of it reads like an LSD trip, making one think it was all made up as a joke.  However, it seems there's truth to the story, since Steve Mann, cofounder of the Wearable Computing Project at the MIT Media Lab, began experimenting with some crude homebrew equipment in the early 1980's while he was a student at MIT.  That was a decade before the World Wide Web, 17 years before IEEE 802.11 WiFi became a published standard, and they were playing around with wireless networking using amateur radio equipment operating in the VHF and/or UHF bands.  Wearable computers haven't been an interest of most radio amateurs; amateur radio was a means to an end for a few individuals interested in wearable computers.  The paragraph probably needs to be revised by going back to the beginning and researching the sources of the story. Quicksilver 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Glogs" 

message: I posted the cleanup notice because this article is a mess and I don't have enough time to clean up all of it myself.  If you want to help, you do some of the tasks mentioned above, or help out in any way possible, really.  For example, the History section is much too long and merits its own article - if someone willing to massively edit that huge section were to split it off, that'd go a long way towards making this article shorter and more readable.  Most text past the Formatting section needs to be substantially re-written, if not removed as dross, so feel free to do that as well. Thesquire 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All these "damn subsets" are under consideration for consolidation, removal, or expansion into their own pages, as noted above.  Even when categories are split off, though, a summary is left on the main page, so there's only so much that can be done with splitting off categories.  Splitting off the history page, though, would cut down on the article size immensely. Thesquire 01:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I was just wondering if anyone knows the word X in this sentence: "X is to blogging as reading is to writing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.186.197 (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a well known fact that nobody actually READS blogs. Therefore, a word for READING them is unnecessary. --Timecop 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Haha.  There is a List of blogging terms article, but half that list consists of portmaneau that are used by a very small subset of the blogging community, so I would put much stock in it.  Even so, I think there isn't a term for reading a blog other than "reading a blog."  Seems kinda useless to make one up, too. Thesquire 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb for reading blogs? 

message: Isn't stretching to distinguish the concept of a blog or blogging from something like "traditional websites" or "usenet forums" an admission of the inherent reality that in fact blogs are not distinguishable from these activities or concepts at all?  It seems clear to me now that you can't compare blogging to web publishing because in fact what has happened is that web publishing has become blogging.  We struggle to compare between this and that precisely because we cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.195.136 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A stretch

message: The statement "while The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other establishment media outlets formed a mass media cheering section for the revolution in telecommunications, Schreibman's News Columns and Special Reports conveyed a radically different story: of "telco feudalism" enacted by that revolution, in a legislative process that was rife with corrupt polticial influence peddling, by Congressional leaders such as Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS), and by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA)."  Seems to be partisian even with citation in place.  Just becaule Dole and Gingrich may have done it, and from that paragraph it is hard to understand what is being claimed, it doesn't mean that people on both sides of the isle aren't guilty of simular things. Dark Nexus 16:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Who is Vigdor Schreibman? I removed several paragraphs about him (including an inappropriate section header). There were many early Internet journalists. If he started in 1993, he certainly wasn't the first person posting news to the Internet. I've never heard him referenced as the first blogger, actually I've never heard of him at all. This strikes me as vanity. Rhobite 20:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think that AfDing that article was the most appropriate response.  However, the Vigdor Schreibman stuff that keeps being added is blatantly POV, has little root in fact, and is also poorly written.  Wikipedia is not a place to post manifestos. Thesquire 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vigdor Schreibman 

message: This is not a POV question, but is there nothing criticizing blogs out there, not any negative voices?  It seems everyone has good things to say, but does the medium have any inherent flaws? bodhidharma 01:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it does. The problem is, all the jerks with blogs who have this article on their watchlist will immediately jump if anyone begins making any kind of negative edits. --Timecop 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the Vigdor stuff dies down, I'd be interested in hammering out a criticisms article, although perhaps couching it in terms such as "limitations of the medium" or some such would go far in keeping people happy with it. Thesquire 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering if anyone has some good sources of criticism?  I would like to add some sections, but I can't seem to find any sites with definite criticisms--it seems that the entire web and lots of the traditional media is enamoured with blogs, and I am looking for voices of dissent. bodhidharma 15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that if you asked your local reference librarian that he/she could point you to tons of criticisms of them.  Most caveats about stuff one finds on the web (or, even, Wikipedia) transfers to the blogosphere, in that anyone can post anything, be it truth, lies, or somewhere inbetween.  I also recall back in the 2004 US Presidential elections that many of the talking heads were complaining about blogs posting the early numbers that the talking heads had and were using to bend their commentary, but not actually reporting on. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms? 

message: To actually determine the consensus on the issue, I propose a straw poll. This is the text involved:
Vigdor Schreibman and Internet news
The Federal Information News Syndicate (FINS), Vigdor Schreibman] Editor & 
Publisher, was from its inauguration on Jan 11, 1993, an Internet-based news
organ; its web-based archive -- the first "blog" --  was located, first, on Jan 9, 1994 at the University of Maryland, as FINS InfoAge Lib.  Three years later this archive became, on Aug 20, 1997,
Fins Global Information Age Library, 
at SunSITE (Sun Software, Information, and Technology Exchange) located at the 
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, where it has operated continuously during the 
past eight years.  This archive was designed as an experimental "digital library" 
containing back issues of Fins News Columns and Special Reports, as well as 
pivotal public policy papers "communicating the emerging philosophy of the 
Information Age."  
Vigdor Schreibman was also "the first Internet-based writer to seek accreditation 
from the Congressional press gallery," according to Michael Wines, writing in 
his "Media" column at The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1996, at D7.  The threat 
of Internet-based news reporting alarmed the establishment press.  Wines sought to 
disparage internet-based reporters in his story.  He compared them with "throngs 
of Lilliputians" like the editor of FINS, who inhabit the virtual world of 
cyberspace while reporters of the established press were depicted as "Gullivers," 
"a colossus of a creature" drawing upon the imagry of the story of 
" Man-Mountain, told by the great eighteenth-century satirist Jonathan Swift in his book Gulliver's Travels.   
However, the fiercely independent, Internet-based news reporting set in motion 
by Vigdor Schreibman quickly established a new mode of reporting that did not 
conform to the elitest imagry Mr. Wines sought to convey.  Nor were these
internet-based reporters -- the first bloggers -- likely to become merely 
acquiescent tools of the Big Money controlled Congress and its compliant news media.      
While The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other 
establishment media outlets formed a mass media cheering section for the 
revolution in telecommunications, Schreibman's News Columns and Special Reports 
conveyed a radically different story: of "telco feudalism" enacted by that revolution, 
in a legislative process that was rife with corrupt polticial influence peddling, 
by Congressional leaders such as  
Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS), and by 
House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA). 
Those stories were to pave the way for a new class of media politics with an 
"unforgiving toughness and a mastery of new means of communications" that within 
a decade exploded into a serious challenge between  
" The Beltway versus The Blogosphere, as reported by Howard Fineman in Newsweek-MSNBC, September 14, 2005.  In the early days of the 21st-century the politics of Internet Bloggers has become a powerful new instrument of Countervailing Power moving toward an overthrow of the governing class.
The next crucial generation of bloggers will be compelled to democratize communications
with the facilitation of technology that can manage A Technique of Democracy
which is needed to "form a more perfect Union" as the First Americans envisioned in the Constitution of the United States.  In the absence of a genuine Union the governing system
will be guided by the coercive phenomenon of "Groupthink" responsive to raw power alone,
which is what has been occuring for some time.
Votes shall be Keep or Remove, with arguments supporting the vote following. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: after looking through WP:NOT, I found Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  I think it safe to say that this, by itself, justifies removing the Vigdor text from the article.  -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 12:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vigdor text straw poll

message: (I've never been to a discussion on a Wikipedia article before, so I hope I don't do anything wrong. Please let me know if I do)
I have been under the impression that a blog, has to have some kind of feed (RSS 0.9x, 1.0, 2.0, Atom 0.3, 1.0, etc.) for its posts in order to be a blog, and not just any website with information posted in reverse chronological order. In the same way that a podcast has be be included in some kind of feed that lets you subscribe to it in order for it to be a podcast and not just an mp3 file with people talking (or music for that matter). But nowhere in the article about blogs are feeds even mentioned, although it is beyond doubt that feeds are an important part of blogs.
But are they as important as I've thought (that is, you have to include a feed to call your website a blog), or am I mistaken? The above unsigned comment was by User:Forteller at 21:06, 30 December 2005 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a number of blogs that do not have feeds, and actually remember a couple years ago when feeds weren't common at all. Time was, one had to visit each blog's webpage manually to check to see if it had updates.  So no, a feed is not necessary for a site to be a blog, and not all sites with feeds are blogs.  However, I know little about podcasts, so you may be right there. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feeds

message: a moblog is just another blog genre; I propose merging. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  RfA! 10:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Recent section additions of "moblog" and "cultural blog" have started to show a pattern. When is a topical area a whole type? It could be worrying if we are just making this stuff up. Do bloggers in the music industry consider themselves "cultural bloggers"? It is okay to accept convention, but here convention is sort-of being made out of whole cloth. And who will follow it? It would be great for this article to be the origin of new terms, although that might not be proper. It would be sad if a student referenced the article, only to be admonished by his or her teacher for using a term that does not exist. Anthony717 23:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are distinguishable subtypes of blogs - mainly that there are those which discuss politics or other substantial subject matter, and others which are nearly incoherent personal ramblings, categories for which have already been created.  I'm not sure if "moblogs" are significantly different for how they're created, and I'm also not sure whether we need subtypes of more than a few of the topical blogs. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that made no sense at all -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of blogs versus topical blogs (topics of blogs) 

message: redirects here but the word doesn't appear in the text. (Or at least, Ctrl+F doesn't find it.) Could anybody who knows about multiblogs please add a few words about them to the article? Thanks --147.122.2.211 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Multiblog]] 

message: Since I've had to revert this twice, I'm going to talk about it.  This is not a sentence:
: Therefore, allowing full user manipulation of the situation to their specifications.
If you eliminate the clause "allowing full user manipulation of the situation to their specifications", you are left with "Therefore".  "Therefore", by itself, is not a sentence.
The previous sentence is fine.  Daniel Quinlan 02:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Unless anyone objects, I'm going to create another archive page for this talk page in a few days. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive