Talk:Blogebrity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't want to change the article myself, as I write for Blogebrity, but it probably shouldn't include the whole ABC lists, as Blogebrity's founders put a lot of creative effort into placing bloggers into different categories. This constitutes a copyrightable work.

Also, the article implies that Blogebrity was a "hoax" and was a one-time event. The blog is constantly updated, and the list is occasionally amended. The article is thus misleading about Blogebrity's nature. Again, if I weren't such a biased source, I'd edit the article myself. --Nick Douglas 20:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As someone on one of those lists I guess I'm a little biased as well but I thought it was kind of cool that they were here when I first saw this article. It would be hard to pick only a few people from the lists without pissing someone off or starting an edit war, and of course the lists were the main thing that got people to notice Blogebrity so an encyclopedia article about the site without the lists seems lacking. Hmmm... -- Sean Bonner 23:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

A vastly more selective approach is needed. I think several of the names match article names, even though they're not about the same person. The list shouldn't be longer than what somebody is willing to personally verify. Minor note: I gave up trying to verify names due to the monsterous color scheme and font selection at Blogebrity. --rob 08:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

After toasting most the names (especially ones with unrelated article links), I'm thinking the next step may be to put the real celebs up top (forgetting about "a", "b", and "c" groupings). I realize blogs are a dime-a-dozen, but it's mildly interesting to see real celebs with active blogs, that are truly their own, and more than event announcements. Mathew Good seems like a good example of who should be prominent here. --rob 12:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of the lists on here to show what Blogebrity is/was doing? If the lists are edited on Wikipedia then they don't reflect what is on Blogebrity and aren't accurate or related anymore. I think the lists should either mirror what is currently on blogebrity at any given moment or be removed all together but chopping them down seems to defeat the point of having them here in the first place. Also, celebrities with blogs isn't the idea behind blogebrity, is it? Sean Bonner 16:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the old list was full a massive number of errors. It was also, already out-of-synch with Blogebrity.com. It's better to be honest that they don't match (synching could never be maintained). Many (actually most) seemingly valid blue-article links pointed to articles about famous people that were completely unrelated to the blogger meant by Blogebrity.com. The huge error filled list, was so huge, it was beyond repair. No links are better than bad links. Let's be realistic, nobody was ever going to take the time to carefully disambiguate all the names in the old list. The quality of the list has improved now, and people can now see who a name *actually* refers to. I don't think a name like "Mathew Good" should be lost in list that once included a link to a person who died before the internet even existed. --rob 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merely being a celbrity with blogs isn't the idea of blogrebity, true. But if a serious followed blog that's not just about their celebrity status, like "mathew good", than they definately are a blogrebity and a celebrity, worthy of note. --rob 22:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think that is your place to judge. The list was put together by Blogeberity and they are agruing above that it's a copywrited work, so you taking and and editing out certain people or adding certain people makes the list not apply to blogebrity anymore. This isn't an article about a term, it's an article about a website. If you want to argue that the list could never be mirrored that is valid so either it should be a reflection of what the list was on day one of the site, for reference only, or the list should not be on here. A list that has been edited by anyone other than those people involved with Blogebrity has no place in this article. Sean Bonner 22:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well if it's the whole list or no list, it must be no list. It's unnacceptable, and irresponsible to places scores of false links in article. For instance, a link to somebody who died before the internet started. Just to be clear, prior to my edits this list did *not* reflect Blogebrity.com correctly as Blogebrity.com had links to real blogs, and this article had links to unrelated wiki bios. Big difference. I don't see how what I tried is different than when an article mentions the famous winners of an award, without mentioning every person in history ever given the award by that organization, no matter how insignificant. Is it your position, that every article that mentions an award/honor/label/recognition must mention all named people, or nobody at all? --rob 02:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I (again, Blogebrity writer) prefer no list, or at most, the A-list. The other lists are not significant in the least. Even the A-list is hardly worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Isn't the original version available through the Internet Archive? Couldn't an external link point there? Also, Sean's right. A list of celebrities with blogs would be interesting, but it would have little to do with Blogebrity. --Nick Douglas 03:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I won't mind if you delete it all. Although, if the lists are as insignificant as you say (you would know best), the whole article is probably not worth keeping. --rob 08:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WEB

Does this site meet WP:WEB guidelines? I noticed the alexa ranking was pretty low. Friday (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No it does not meet those requirements. --rob 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Not for readership numbers, but it does for influence. --Nick Douglas 17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lists

If there's no valid objections I'm going to suggest that the lists be removed entirely and just point to the ones on Blogebrity. Currently they are chopped and constantly vandalized by people adding their own name to the lists making them quite useless. Sean Bonner 01:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)