Talk:Vlog/Archive 1

message: A friendly reminder to please use the "Show Preview" button before saving your edits whenever possible.  It helps keep the History Page neat and tidy.Pdelongchamp 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Page 

message: I noticed Steve's article on North East Film.  It is inappropriate perhaps to cite it as a source for definition (although the PC Mag article really is a HORRID, incorrect and improper article)... however it is a very good article... and what's more I think since we can't possibly define videoblogging as anything more than a technical thing... that we should AT THE VERY LEAST be given the leway to link to important educational and news articles on video blogging. There have been articles anywhere from Wired to Rolling Stone, and there is a tremendous amount of educational material on video blogging. I'm really ticked that a certain person doesn't seem to think ANYthing is worthy of wikipedia... so fuck it, we'll cite the stuff that 'isn't important enough to be on wikipedia' in the raw as links.  Educational articles like Adrian Miles so called "hypertext paradigm's of cinema" to seminal articles on the debate over the definition of video blogging... to articles discussing theory.  That much cannot be denied.  Oh... and to the videoblogging wiki. Excellent. I will work to fill out this section over the coming weeks. If it is deleted I will keep readding it, over and over and over. Because the stagnation of the video blogging article do to ONE person is absurd. Meanwhile the "video podcasting" article on wikipedia has continued to grow and get better. When one doesn't let a SINGLE peace of copy exist on an article without having in written it their own damn selves they should ask themselves if they aren't being and overindulgent control freak. Now... I'll just start growing this video blogging in another direction instead. The theory being that it's simply pasting links may be less argumentative than actually using words.
*Re External articles There, that should be a good start. I know it's imperfect. Maybe articles should be chronological... maybe I have to many. Maybe they shouldn't be organized as internetional and regional, but I think regional articles can be just more insightful sometimes than international.  The point is 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 not do to a lack of information out there about vlogging but because of political issues with people on wikiepedia. 
I would asked even if some of these articles are deemed "not worthy" that they would be left for just a little while the section is being "fleshed out".  While that is being done to come up with some rought criteria by which these articles should be judged as worthy. Because certainly the majority of them are, because THEY HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND what videoblogging is. They show facets such as the political side, the diary side. All sorts of useful information... and in fact I hope some of them will be used in reference to the so called "genres" section and elseware, but that is a side note.
BTW, I still haven't even gotten to the educational resources. Thesis and such. But I there will only be a few of those. I don't think anyone on wikipedia would scoff at thesis and other "resources for extended learning".
*Cleaned up the formating - Using other pages such as blogging as a template. I think having VERY specific categories under further links will help us limit it to just what matters. Including educational resources and news articles. This by it's nature implies NOT vlogs. Those adding vlog links will find themselves having to make a new category... which should indicate to most that they're adding something they shouldn't be, if they need that extra clue. :)  I'm sort of pleased with myself on this one. Though, I of course think we should come up with some better criteria on what news articles are worthy and maybe it could use some further cleanup and better organization.--mmeiser 09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External articles on video blogging 

message: *Given that the video blogging article was called upon to JUSTIFY it's existence, and that really... all other articles... well most cite books for "further reading" and that the books were definitely an important part of that justification, but more importantly are a great resource to further understanding. I added them in!  And I don't know why none of us thought of them sooner.  I'm quite pleased with myself and I dare anyone to try and justify their removal.  God knows once you have a "For Dummies" book printed about you that your a legitimate phenom. LOL :) - But seriously, they're all legitimate ISBN approved, major presses. Peace. --mmeiser 09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading & See Also Sections 

message: *Mmeiser, the magazine reference does not say that a vlog is "similar" to a blog, it says it "is" a blog.  Your personal opinion shouldn't factor into an encyclopedia's description of a term.  Instead of copying today's BLOG definition, you should just state that a vlog is a blog.  The term is very well known term and the link will allow anyone not in the know to read up about it. (as well as see the discussion and history of the actual blog article)  Also, the current quote is pretty much completely different than what is found in the referenced piece.  You shouldn't change the sourced definition and leave the original source.  Also, please include the sources you used for the analysis of the Truffaut quote.Pdelongchamp 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Moved the following from the Article to the Discussion page (additional comments below):
*The exact definition of vlog is still not clear, with opinion divided between it being about the content itself, or purely the delivery mechanism.  Several manifestos, most delivered as video, have tried to address the question of definition:
** Michael Verdi's Vlog Anarchy, where he states that defining a vlog as a genre limits innovation and ignores what he feels is more important: that the genre reduces barriers to media creation.  In a later video, Experiment, he says, "... things like iTunes TV show downloads and videoblogs that are created to make money rather than communicate starting to alter the course of the public conversation. I say those kinds of things are not videoblogging".
** Adrian Miles, in his paper Media Rich versus Rich Media, states that because blogs are highly granular, a vlog or videoblog by definition must also be highly granular.  Thus, linear 'closed' video works which are commonly recognised as vlog posts, by virtue of their low granularity, are simply 'video in a blog' and not technically videoblogging. In his paper, Miles offers several examples of where vlogging and interactive media may be headed in this respect.
*A clear definition of 'vlog' is stated at the top of the article.  If you disagree with the definition of vlog, then change it.  If someone wants to know about the discussion regarding an article they're reading, they'll click the Discussion page.  That's the idea behind the discussion page.Pdelongchamp 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The question of definition

message: I mmeiser added a major new section trying to dive into the heart of the primary issues that define and differentiate video blogging from mainstream media. I tried really hard to define vlogging in a very encyclopedic and non-controversial way. It's very dry, and a hare long... but I think based on initial feedback I may have actually pulled it off. Please go over it and make adjustements as you may... above all please leave comments here. Could use all the feedback on this edit you can offer. I'm expecting a firestorm of deletes, edits, and neg feedback. So far I've recieve positive comment from Michael Verdi and Steve Garfield independantly of one another. That's two down... about 10,000 more peers left to get approval from. :) --mmeiser 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section added and then removed: Underpinnings

message: After some careful consideration I re-added the François Truffaut quote regarding "the film of tomorrow".  I stopped short of calling the section title "the film of tomorrow" instead calling it the much more poignant "historical context".  The quote was originally removed by an annonymous coward (someone not logged in and with no username) on July 26 whom only stated "Quoting Truffaut in an article about video blogging? What the fuck is wrong with you guys??".  I think in fact that understanding this essential relationship between traditional film as a high art, and the everyday film that is video blogging is essential to understanding what video blogging is about... and I  and know many, MANY vloggers would aggree.  Maybe this annonymous editor had a point, maybe not, but their case was not well stated.  In addition I have left out the section Pdelongchamp cited as "original research" and I think this is a good compromise. What is left is certainly not original research, and it makes an essential and short point about what video blogging is and what it is not. I may go back through the section Pdelongchamp deleted and see if there's something there worth salvaging if I recieve some enchoragment but this should be good for now. Oh... and historical context is a MUCH better term than "underpinnings" for the section. It's the word I was originally looking for, but just couldn't put my finger on.  
P.S. Please let me know if you appreciate what I'm trying to do here. There is MUCH, MUCH to be said on this subject and I, like many, would like to help define it. I feel this article has been so hotly contested in the past because of petty and non-productive disagreements and a lack of collaboration by those in the disagreements.  I've seen several good additions by others removed when they should have been collaboratively revised, not simply dismissed.  We should dare to encourage one another, to be critical but collaborative, to reserve from slashing whole sections... and to attempt instead to rewrite, rework and discuss what is and is not working.  
In short, I as well as other contributors could use all the feedback and especially encouragement we can get so that we can evolve around the simplistic "genres" definition... which is quite frankly a very poor way of defining. We can define this in a far richer and more well rounded way.  Video blogging is NOT simply entertainment, nor is it simply art, nor is it a bunch of "genres". Videoblogging is about the transcendence of the moving image from a tool of the few, to a tool of the many... from use from everything from everyday practical communication, to high art and film, to entertainment and absolutely everything inbetween. Maybe I just need to state that in the article? :) LOL. Peace and thank you. --mmeiser 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Historical Context.  There was no sign of notable sources relating to the article's topic.  The only source provided was from an article that doesn't even mention videoblogging.  This leads me to the only possible conclusion that this is original research.Pdelongchamp 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: this quote was quoted IN FULL by Peter Van Dijke at the keynote speach to vloggercon 06. I'll cite the transcript on his vlog, AND the actuall video of him speaking it if you like.  That should be enough... if not I can count for you the number of times it has been cited on the yahoo video blogging group... and the number of times it has been cited by video bloggers.  The reason it is so important is it explains the KEY issue that most people don't get about videoblogging. That point is... as I pointed out in the addition...  that videoblogging is not simply entertainement, that it is in fact communications, and that it is relevant to others because of the relationship of the creator of the video to the viewers of the video... not because of it's entertainment value... but because of it's communicative value.  I will readily admit that my words may have been imperfect, and NO my clearly cited citation, did not have citation as to why it was being cited.  However I beg of you to work with me... to collaborate instead of just slashing.  BECAUSE we all know that that genres thing is a load of crap... "communication" doesn't have genres. it's like defining your phone calls by genres!!  The scope of vlogging ranges from personal communications, that just so happen to be public, to entertainment... it is not simply entertainment... therfore it is fundamentally not classifyable by genres. I should know... you can go back in the yahoo video blogging group and see that a significant portion of that listing of genres was quoted right from me. I had issue with it then but it was early... and it really helped the video blogging article since so few understood videoblogging and we were still defining it on wikipedia... it was no where near as developed as it is now. Please consider that as you strive for perfection. It is a messy proccess. It requires collaboration, and it's imperfect. You can't go from the foothills to the mountain top without taking every step inbetween.  Don't slash everything new as soon as it appears. --mmeiser 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New section: historical context

message: The history section needs to be cleaned up.  Add dashes, remove unrelevent information.Pdelongchamp 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section Cleanup 

message: Since this page was started (by me in fact) back in early 2005, there has been this constant need by certain people, especially aggregators and other commercially driven people, to define vlog as the delivery mechanism, ignoring the content and genre completely. Anyone who monitors the videoblogging yahoo group, or the vlogtheory group, or actually talks to videobloggers, will realise that the jury is still out on exactly what the definition is.
This page MUST explain that the definition is not yet agreed, and must not take a specific stance on the issue. It is up to the videoblogging community, industry and society to ultimately define what vlogging is, and only then can this page take that as the definition.  Richard BF
Yet again, someone removed this question of definition section (and they didn't even bother signing in to do it). Anyone active in the vlogging community would know that the definition is still up in the air. The actual definition at the top of this article is even a watered down vague statement of what videoblogging is which should be restored to its original version as well. One should be asking whether all these changes are by people actually active in the space, or watching on from a distance. Richard BF
Nice edit today (the one that includes michael verdi and steve garfield) I think it's important to recognize and include the primary debates. I sort of don't believe in this "genre" talk... but maybe that's my personal take. I believe genre's is a misnomer in the communicative pardigm... these are not shows, it's not broadcast, it's not about episodes... I mean it can be on one end of the spectrum... but on the important and innovative end of the spectrum it is about this transition from episodic media to communicative media.  At some point I hope we can shed the "genre talk" but I do recognize that it's much easier to illustrate genres then to explain what "episodic to communicative" means. BTW, Be sure add the RSS feed for not only the vlog page, but also this talk page to your RSS reader. It's wicked awesome. Very effective I think not only for tracking who's making edits but also for following the conversation. I can tell I'm hooked already. --mmeiser 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question of definition 

message: Also, some Dutch guy has created a vodcast entry, and put various links to it in the Vlog entry. This is the problem with podcasting people being ignorant of an already existing vlogging community, before defining a new and incorrect term. Its even more annoying that the history section in vodcast notes all these Dutch historical events that we've already been doing in the Vlogging community since well before then. We have enough trouble fighting off the heaily branded and inaccurate term "podcast", let alone dealing with "vodcast".
Richard BF
: For what it's worth, I've heard the term vodcast used for as long as I've heard vlog used (since Feb. 2005).  I think it's a valid term, better than vlog actually.  Oed 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing vodcast 

message: See Talk:Vodcast for discussion.--Tokek 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge requested

message: Wikipedia is still not a web directory. External links should be to absolutely key defining sites, or to resources that add topical information for those particularly interested. They should not be to services or "tools" (free or not). This article's External links is just horrendous, with links almost always added by the owners of the sites in question in attempts to promote them. I usually just start cleaning up, but in this case that would involve removing almost all links, which would probably be "too brave" -- unless I get consensus here? Haakon 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links out of control 

message: There is a difference between a vodcast and a vlog. Therefore both Wikipedia entries should not be merged. 
A Vlog is a personal bulleting like a blog, but then with video. Mostly a html site, sometimes with rss. 
A vodcast is a TV-channel with on-demand video titles, built by pro-users or broadcasters, mostly an rss but not a website.
I agree with the above explanation of the difference between Vlog and Vodcast. What I do not agree with is the term "Vodcast", I favor the term "Vidcast" for the amalgamate of the terms "Video" and "Broadcasting".
--Vinko 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vlog and vodcast differences! 

message: Check out the War on blogs we could use your votes.  -- Femmina 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't merge. Delete! 

message: How about merging Vlog and Vodcast with Internet television.  (Both are really just alternate names for Internet TV.)
--Charles Iliya Krempeaux 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A Vlog or Vidblog is more like an online video version of someone's life, akin to a blog. Internet television seems to denote more of a 'show' based concept, which is does not mesh. — Justin Johnson 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with Justin that Vlog or Vodcast should not be merged with Internet television or IPTV. — Vinko 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Vlog and Vodcast with Internet television? 

message: One of the potential problems with Vlogs is the current inability of search engines to create rich metadata or "search engine" data from the stream.  For Vlogs to be fully embraced as part of web culture, some indexing solution will need to emerge. 
:Moved from main article.  Not sure what to do with it.  Badly written it's notable relevance is questionable.Pdelongchamp 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vlogs and Web Culture

message: Adding this back in.
"Another person obsessively monitoring his own biography is Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who has edited it frequently"
SOURCE: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-looks-out-number-1
The entry I reinstated about myself was one that I did not originally write.  The note on the deleteion says, "17:20, 30 August 2006 Pdelongchamp (Talk | contribs) (→History - removed steve garfield link spam. the "year of the blog" statement would need to be recognized by a -notable- source and not just by the author)"
This video blog post is an important point in video blogging history.  
SOURCE: BOSTON PHOENIX
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/05145823.asp
:Hey Steve, I agree.  When it was originally removed, i asked for a notable source and none was provided upon its reinstatement.  I figured it was link spam but I'm glad you were able to prove me wrong.Pdelongchamp 17:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Year of the Video Blog

message: The source of 'video clip' doesn't even mention length of the video, so how can that be a source?
:if you're refering to my comment, i meant the PC Magazine source.  The video clip article does mention that video clips are generally shorter than a standard television show.  I don't think it would be appropriate to define the exact lenght of a video clip in order to deem it so.Pdelongchamp 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything I've looked up about video clip just says that it's a short video.  It never says anything about it being a section of a longer video.  Just read the wikipedia article for video clip.  I also want to point out that this is an encyclopedia article.  We can't just change things because we disagree.  We have to prove that we're right with notable sources.  If you think that the PC Magazine definition is wrong than the only thing i can suggest is that you nominate this article for deletion.  Frankly, I still think it's a neologism and supported the orginal nomination.  There aren't enough notable sources writing about "video blog" to support an article about it.Pdelongchamp 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a great article. As long as you're sourcing something notable, make whatever changes you want. I agree that the PC Magazine definition is pretty bad. (but it's all I could find) If you want to remove it, go ahead and do that too. Just make sure everything is sourced.Pdelongchamp 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Clip

message: I can't believe this. Almost I year since I stopped maintaining this article, and you guys still can't agree on what vlog means. At this stage, I should point you to a note I made above, and have made several times over the past few years: that we still don't agree on what a videoblog is. If we did, then obviously this Wikipedia article would be the definition of it. So let's not get into the whole 99.9% of people know what it is argument.
My preference would be to delete this article altogether, and make reference to vlog in the blog page. Something along the lines of: vlog is a term used by some to describe a blog which contains video. With the vast amount of video, audio and static images now included with blogs, it would seem as though the term is probably redundant. After all, there is no term for a blog which contains audio (alog?) or images (ilog?).
My personal opinion is that vlog is a genre, and that this article should be a description of what some currently refer to as "personal videoblogging". However I'd have a hard time pushing this view with many mainstays of the vlogging community, so I'd just prefer the deletion and footnote option, as described in the above paragraph, instead.
I'll also point you to the following blog post, which outlines the reasoning behind my opinion. The definition of videoblogging as a genre -- Richard BF 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I supported exactly what you wrote about deleting and adding it to the blog article when vlog was up for deletion.  Not enough people aggreed so they left it as it was.  I want to add though Kashum that you never and still don't quite understand what Wikipedia is about.  It's not about us aggreeing on something.  It's about having notable sources and quoting them.  So many times you argued my definition and yet you were never able to supply a notable source that supported your definition or description.  That's all it needs.  I was never arguing with your opinion, i was only arguing your lack of notable sources.  I've stopped caring about the article because since Youtube addopted the word "videoblog" it's no longer about blogs since Youtube isn't considered a blog.  Therefor, as long as notable sources start agreeing, I beleive that vloggin *will* in fact be a theme like you say.  But like I said, it's not about what i think or what you think, it's about what is verifiable and reported on by *notable sources*.  It's an encylopedia, not rocketscience.Pdelongchamp 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note for incoming maintainers

message: Constructive work was once being done on this article but in the last few months it's all been unsource information or a copy and paste job of news links without any effort to incorporate source information into the body of the article.  I would assume since videoblogging on youtube has exploded that news articles are finally being written but none have appeared.  I'm bored so i'm cleaning up the article a bit.  I'll also see if i can get the name changed to videoblogging which is used much more in notable sources.  Do a search on google news and you'll find video blog is used about 8 times more often than vlog.  Running a regular google search would make one think that vlog is more popular but the results are 95% directory sites & aggregator bot pages.Pdelongchamp 02:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has stagnated 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support, I've actually never heard them referred to as vlogs other than in very informal situations. "Video blog" is common enough to warrant a move, I think. Voretus 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support, I've actually never heard them referred to as vlogs other than in very informal situations. "Video blog" is common enough to warrant a move, I think. Voretus 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: Hi, is there any term for people who just embed videos from YouTube or Google Video in their blogs, but they are not the authors of the videos, but merely collect them, perhaps categoriez or desribe them? (e.g. here) Are there any other blogs like that? Thanks for info! Paxik (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you call video blogger who only reposts embeded videos?