Talk:Blog/Archive 4

message: I think the article could benefit from a short list of 5-10 well known blogs, or else a link to source that would provide such a list.  Does anyone have any ideas about a good source for this type of information?  Thanks. Johntex\talk 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only such list I'm aware of is The Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, which measures incoming links. A number of blogs/bloggers have Wikipedia articles, I'd suggest linking to those (where they haven't already been linked in the rest of the article.) -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to be careful that we don't head for the spam event horizon here.  A single link to a blog directory would be good, but deciding whihc are the best-known blogs is likely to be subjective and lead to endless arguments with people trying to boost their pagerank. Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, keep the hyperlinks to the blogs themselves off this page - if the blogs are notable enough, they'll have their own articles to link to. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Best Known or Most Popular Blogs

message: Reading the section "Blogging Appears" it seemed as though the sentences about Justin Hall and Xanga were somehow related. I checked his article and straightened things out, then edited the article to make it clear that there's no connection. However, I'm wondering whether that reference to Xanga's expansion should be reworded or moved (possible to a section on mass-market blogging), since it covers such a wide time frame, far beyond the years of blogs' first appearance. Thoughts? --Cantara 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should Xanga reference go?

message: Blogosphere should be a subsection of Blog. It is not large enough to be an article itself in my opinion and on top of this, the article goes on to explain what a blog is in the first place... "Weblogs tend to be about a variety of subjects. The form weblogs can take ranges from a simple list of personal links to diary-style. From the beginning, many weblogs have dealt with current events and politics." Thepcnerd 04:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a video mobile blog (ie video shot on mobile, uploaded over the air for editing, with playback on mobile or web), and I'm wondering whether mobile video blogs should have their own section too. You can peruse some of my videos on my Biog page. Stephen B Streater 10:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogosphere, moblog, splog, etc as a subsection of Blog 

message: "blogging has quickly emerged as a popular and important means of communication, affecting public opinion and mass media around the world."
Just because a few techno freaks, or some people turning a profit out of the tec industry, have a tendency to call whatever passing fad arises the it thing, doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should have it's ojective stance compromised. I am therefore removing this, one of the opening sentences, because it's downright erroneous. "Blogging" is another form of keeping a diary, or writing articles over the internet, or even just another term, and in no way has it even commenced affecting "public opinion" or the mass media in the western world, let alone in the world at large where the internet is  not even a known word in wholed continents such as africa or where it's use is a rarity such as in the middle east. Just because a few self important webaholics in the most modernized and technologically advanced countries think that people around the world actually care for their ramblings it doesn't mean they do. So, neither popular, and popular in terms of what, if you mean readership then of the what 5% around the world that actually use the internet, nor important. Media hype and frenzy should have no place in an encyclopedia. I am removing it, i expect a rational answer if someone decides to reinstate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.22.112 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 March 2006  (UTC)
:It's certainly verifiable that major news networks have started using well-known blogs as sources. Some have features that talk about what's going on in the "blogosphere". The comment needs refining, but I don't think it was too far off. --Cantara 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Cantara - political blogs do affect political discourse in the US at least, and besides being occasionally cited as sources for stories they have also been involved in keeping stories alive and forcing the media to take notice.  The comment needs some editing, but the premise is correct -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hard to deny that blogging is popular, at least. There was just a cover story on blogging in New York magazine! I replaced the sentence, without the word "important". Rhobite 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The whole point of doing studies is to uncover truths that go against 'common sense.'  I find an MIT paper more persuading than some anonymous wikipedian.  It seems to me that you have an axe to grind.  What exactly is it? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 14:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm unimpressed by the "common sense" argument, but I agree that it would be good to have evidence for or against the "impactfulness" of blogging. So what kind of evidence would satisfy you, o skeptical anon? How does one evaluate the importance of a medium? · rodii · 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that wikipedia works under the principle of consensus.  Unilaterally going against said consensus is frowned upon.  Also, please note that since you're posting with an IP address, you're not really that anonymous. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You say you're making rational arguments but all I see is your personal belief that blogging isn't popular. That won't cut it either. Rhobite 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you'd tolerate that compromise phrase, why don't you put it in, rather than continue bloviating about it here?  That kind of qualifying is something that very few people would argue against.  We're gonna need another page archive once this is done, I swear.  Also, please sign your posts - I'm getting tired of signing them for you. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I normally don't play the logical fallacy game, but since you seem to have a preoccupation with them - you objected to the phrase "very influential popular and important medium in the 21st century". However that isn't even the phrase we're arguing over. The words "influential" and "important" aren't used in the actual phrase you removed. For this reason you are using a straw man argument. And please sign your comments. Rhobite 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply above, that's very helpful, largely because it allows me to more or less discount what you have to say. You're asking for a standard of proof that's higher than just about anything else we have on Wikipedia, which, although it tries to reflect scholarly consensus, is not in itself a scholarly organ. I think it's clear from everything that you write above that the reason you set the bar so high is because you dislike blogs and feel contempt for the people involved with them. I don't think we really need to worry too much about satisfying anyone's hidden agenda. That said, you make the very good point that the claim that weblogs are important needs either to be sourced or to be nuanced. It is very true that there's a lot of hype and hot air associated with the genre, and we should be wary of simply repeating inflated claims as if they were true. I think the way to approach this is to report that such claims have been made, and that they have been criticized by others, and in the absence of any definitive studies leave it at that. That's not what you're doing, though, o anon. You're just blanking the passage without any attempt I can see to improve it, with the knowledge that you can provoke a reaction here and thus have a forum to express your disgruntlement about Western-centric views of the internet. That's not what we're here for, though; we're here to write an encyclopedia and that means proposing ways to improve this article. Some assessment of the importance of blogs is clearly called for. A constructive proposal would be great; if you just want to bitch about blogs, get one of your own. · rodii · 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogging's importance and popularity 

message: Here and on the Swarthmore College page, it says that Hall is "widely considered" to have been the first blogger.  Is there any source for this?  I have just spent 15 mins googling for one, to no avail.  The SF Chronicle (and his own Wikipedia page) says he was a "pioneer" blogger, but I haven't found a citation that he was first (at least from a credible, non-Wikipedia-linked source).  I don't necessarily doubt it (someone had to be first), but whenever I see the phrase "widely considered" without a couple of citations, I get the willies.  -- Gnetwerker 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Justin Hall]]: First Blogger?

message: Hello, fellow editors. I stumbled upon this Weblog FAQK and was wondering if the things he says about the coming of age of the weblogs after the WTC disasters. Is it true? --rolandog 07:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That site, The Brunching Shuttlecocks, is a humor site. But that particular answer may be intended seriously. So I dunno. In any event, it's a matter of interpretation--I wouldn't take it as "true" in any real sense. · rodii · 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Coming of Age of Weblogs 

message: Traditional what? What is this supposed to be saying? · rodii · 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional media, possibly -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blogging and the traditional" 

message: * Ciel, j’ai ma notice dans Wikipedia ! : Daniel Schneidermann talking in his blog (www.bigbangblog.net) about Wikipedia. Blogg1 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *And? · rodii · 18:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bigbangblog 

message: There are several different types of references and footnote links in this article. I thought (for about ten seconds) about trying to covert them to a uniform system (ideally using ), but realized I was just not confident of my understanding of the system. Any ideas on how we could improve this? · rodii · 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are chaotic