Talk:Video blogging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-Priority on the priority scale.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Video blogging article.
Article policies
To-do list for Video blogging: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Archive
    Archives
    /Archive 1/Archive 2


    Contents

    [edit] the majority of vlogs and vlog entries are authored by individuals.

    RegardingThough many vlogs are collaborative efforts, the majority of vlogs and vlog entries are authored by individuals.[citation needed]

    This should be completely removed. It is not possible to accurately prove this nor do I feel it is useful to the article as it just does not matter one way or another. The genres list is enough. Sull

    Though I agree it shouldn't be there if it isn't sourced, I do believe the claim to be true and i think it would help readers to understand vlogs if this were included in the article. Let's remove it but be on the lookout for verification because i'd like to reinsert it with a source if I were to find one. The genres list is original research however that was added by Adam Quirk. I asked him for the source but I think he just copied and pasted it from the blog article. We'll have to remove it eventually. (i'll wait until we get a third party to comment first however because I don't want to seem like I'm gatekeeping the article) :S Pdelongchamp 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Sometimes shortened to vlog

    I added '(sometimes shortened to vlog)' to the beginning of the article. I chose the sources randomly aside from selecting one from 2005, 2006, and 2007. Pdelongchamp 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] History

    • The notability of the time line events must be asserted and each item must be sourced by a third party before they are reinserted into the article. Pdelongchamp 18:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

    In this history there is no indication of Educational progress with vlogs. However there is Pinkman (2006) who talks about blogging in the Japanese EFL classroom. There is also Gromik (2006) who mentions that Japanese students can now make there own videos and upload them on a video storage site such as (blip or youtube). Could this be part of history since it is a shift in educational directions? (Unsigned comment left by Filmedworld on 6 May 2007)

    That's a great idea! You should definitely include whatever reliable information you can find on the topic. Pdelongchamp 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Youtube

    There are a few mentions of YouTube in the history section however none of the sources mention video blogs. Including these citations into the article acts as our own personal analysis of the events. We have to leave it to the sources to determine if, for example, "Youtube Gets Acquired" has anything to do with video blogs and not make that determination ourselves. Let's try to find sources that verify it's importance in the history of video blogging.Pdelongchamp 16:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Links

    • I removed the following sections from the article. If these links contain any usefull information (which I'm sure they do), that information should be included within the article. Links are not a subsitute for content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Pdelongchamp 18:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. We shouldnt have a link list. BUT these are great articles to pull info out of...then they can be in the References section. Jaydedman 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed Links

    I once again removed the section. It violates WP:NOT#LINK.

    A few editors including myself have spoken out against this section. Let's work at adding the content from the removed external links into the article.Pdelongchamp 19:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Statements by editors

    From Talk:Video_blog#Links

    • We shouldnt have a link list. BUT these are great articles to pull info out of...then they can be in the References section. Jaydedman 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    From Community sanction noticeboard: Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

    • Well, what I see there, in for example this edit, is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really would need a lot of improvement. [...] From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to listen to him, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable.Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I do think Pdelongchamp deleted too many external links from this version [2] - I would have deleted 80% of them and kept "Citizens do media for themselves, BBC Technology" "TV Stardom on $20 a Day, New York Times" 'Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera, The Wallstreet Journal" & "The next big thing: vlogging, Times Online, UK" - but only if they were worked into the article. Cailil talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed Section

    [edit] International news and articles

    [edit] Regional news and articles

    [edit] Timeline events

    I made a few updates to some timeline events. Here are my comments.

    • I can't find a reliable source that states that Adrian Miles' post below was the first vlog post. Can anyone verify this fact?
    • Removed the external link to the Yahoo vlog group. External links should be restricted to a separate section. Found a reliable source for this timeline event.
    • I also can't seem to find articles that state that mefeedia is an important development in the history of the video blog. Nor does it have it's own wikipedia article. Any comments on this?
    • I removed the mention of FireANT being released at vloggercon. I couldn't find a reliable source that mentioned it other than a press release. I don't think it's really notable. It reads like an ad.
    • I couldn't find anything notable about the yahoo group growing to 1000 members but i found a reliable source stating it was nearly 1000 and another stating it was at 1200. I'll leave the timeline event at 1000 with the original date.Pdelongchamp 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed section: Dispute over terminology

    Though the dispute may seem notable to you and other videobloggers in the group, Wikipedia has a policy on what is concidered notable. Until a reliable source talks about the dispute, we have to assume that the general public doesn't know about it or care about it and that the content is, consequently, unencyclopedic. I would have left it in but you admitted in the comments that it is non notable. Which means a) I can't place a [citation needed] message beside it because I know for a fact that it didn't come from a reliable source. Therefore, it's kind of my duty to remove it. (sorry!) I copied and pasted it below however because I agree that the definition is changing and doesn't even necessarily apply to the one in the article but until a notable publication agrees with us, we can't add it to an encyclopedia. Pdelongchamp 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    The rising popularity of video sharing sites in 2005/2006 (notably YouTube) raised considerable online debate among vloggers about the definition of vlogging[1], particularly in the very active Yahoo! Videoblogging Group [2]. A large number of YouTube users, for instance, describe themselves as vloggers because they record personal video journals, despite not offering their videos in a traditional blog format.
    • HTML comments
      • Pdelongchamp wrote: Excellent topic, let's find a better source. Blog sources are frowned upon.
      • Ruperthowe replied: I guarantee you that you will not find one single mention of this in the Main stream media, but that does not mean it does not exist as a real issue - online sources such as the Yahoo Group discussion cited are clearly the most authoritative and widely discussed background material for this kind of item
      • jaydedman asked: "Pdelongchamp, since you seem to have a vision for this page, maybe you can share with us where you want this go. Or are you just being a referee as people make contributions? It'll help me understand exactly what role you are playing in this process. I am assuming good faith, but it's unclear to me where you're mind is at. What is Videoblogging to you? With all the articles and books listed so far, it's difficult to say that it's not a significant artform. I think it would help if we could all agree on the major areas we want to cover."

    I concur with Jay and more importantly I would ask, "Why are you taking such an intrest in this?" What is your purpose? And why do you feel the need for everything to be run by you? Heath

    Oh come on this is just more lack of assumption of good faith, the only way forward is to concentrate on specific changes to the page. Forget about people, personalities, motives, and focus on the article, or we will just go round in circles? SteveElbows 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Ok, let me start by admitting something. In the past, I would remove Original Research (O.R.), place it in the discussion page, and start a discussion. This is an acceptable practice in regards to OR because OR can't be cited. OR doesn't actually come from a source, it's just someone opinion or analysis. Now, the author isn't going to like this since he obviously spent time writing it and, naturally, is somewhat attached to it. So what would happened in the past? They would put it back up without reasoning or discussion. (the wrong thing to do) So what did I do? I removed it again. So is removing it again another wrong thing to do? No, but it wasn't getting us anywhere and I now realize that. Instead of removing it a second time, I should have gotten a third party involved because obviously I failed in explaining Wikipedia policies and, in retrospect, even though I knew what i was doing was right, I wasn't going to make him see the light by simply deleting it again.

    This is just to say that I only took action because I couldn't get a discussion going.

    I don't take action when I know that things can actually be discussed. I hope that helps you to see my reasoning. For example, I'm not crazy about the news links at the bottom of the page and the genres section but I'm leaving it up because I know that I can finally get discussions going about whether it should stay or not. (and I also want to get a third party involved to give us tips and review the article now that people are contributing again)

    So, no, i'm not a gatekeeper and I don't want to be a gatekeeper. Do i have a vision for the article? Kind of. I imagine one day the history timeline should probably be turned into paragraph form. (i have a feeling timelines are frowned upon but i haven't looked into it) and when the article got nominated for deletion, one of the reasons was the dictionary definitions (vlogger, to vlog etc) so I think we'll have to integrate those terms into the article somehow eventually instead of just having them up like they are now. (but now that they're sourced they're not as big of an issue i think)

    I'm glad the discussion is moving to Wikipedia. (so that people that aren't on the vlogging group can join in) You mentioned on the group though that you were going to discuss things before putting them up. That may be a good idea for the topic at hand but I just want to say that generally, if you feel like it belongs on Wikipedia, then put it up. If someone doesn't like it, then they'll discuss it here and you can defend your reasoning. Either you'll be right, or wrong, or there will be a compromise. Just know that there's no need to get approval from anyone first. There are no gatekeepers here. Be bold. (oh, unless there's already a discussion about it, then you should probably read that over and contribute, but in general be bold) (oh and i'm saying that in regards to any wikipedia editing you do, not in regards to me or this article)Pdelongchamp 23:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, generally be bold...but the idea of just putting something down here before discussing it probably won't work. It certainly didn't in the past. People put down what they thought was correct, then it was removed. Being new to the process, I made sure I understood what "original research" means. We have blogs for own own opinions, but wikipedia is important since it's a starting point for many people. The term "videoblog" is more and more common so it's wise to have a clear description of what it is. I wasn't apart of the past edits on wikipedia, so let's drop it. The only goal here is to be constructive. I propose we all work on it together. Let's first talk about the major points we want to hit. Then we'll figure out the citations/references we need. Cool? See the next section below. Jaydedman 01:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Major points we want to cover

    For me the goal of the Videoblog article is to make sure people understand how the artform has evolved, the different ways videoblogs are used, discuss any controversies, and list resources. Please comment so we can begin to flesh it out.

    Let's begin here:

    • List the different definitions
    • Examples of different videoblogs
    I've started a list of
    to categories the different vlog types looking for common characteristics. And current definitions by different people are listed at Toward Vlog Definition
    Please add more entries to fill in.
    posted by: Iragilac 15:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Controversies
    • resources/articles/scholarly papers

    posted by: Jaydedman 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


    Ive been reading the wikipedia entries for things like podcast and blog, to try to get a sense of what may be appropriate here. Things Ive noticed so far is that they dont have very many mentions or links to specific bloggers/podcasters. Directories get listed more than specific shows/blogs. Lists of hosting services or suchlike could be done on a seperate page? The articles seem better when not every sentence needs a source, but there are lots of sources included. Anyway I am going to do a lot more reading of such things before I form any conclusions.

    As for controversies, only the trivial congdon-baron disputes got much mainstream press to use for sourcing, and Im not sure how relevent that falling out was to videoblogging. Controversies relating to sites/services neglect of creative commons stuff would be a potentialy more useful controversy to highlight, but regrettably I cannot recall much mainstream attention to such issues to date?

    SteveElbows 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    Okay, let's stick to facts.

    • Stories: My favorite wikipedia articles have documented stories in them. So the Rocketboom blow-up is well covered and interesting. Also Ask a Ninja.
    • Quotes: since we have so many articles, we can pull quotes from videobloggers who explain the process.
    • Events: we should definitely mention the 2 vloggercons that occured. Well documented and reported on.
    • I personally like the categories since it shows the different ways the medium can be used. Looking at wikipedia, most articles have References, not citations. So we should be clear on which we need. There are lost of articles that give enough background to support the true realities of videoblogging art.

    I'd like to hear thoughts if the above are adequate to go forward. Love to hear more examples for you guys. Jaydedman 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I would like Education to be covered. I think it is important to note that educationalist are attempting to educated students to express their opinions through this creative art. (filmedworld)


    [edit] Removed Terminology

    I removed the section because it violates WP:DICDEF.

    A few editors including myself have spoken out against this section. It was one of the reasons the article was nominated for deletion nearly a year ago.Pdelongchamp 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Statements by editors

    From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_blogs

    • Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    From Community sanction noticeboard: Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

    • Well, what I see there, in for example this edit, is the example of dictionary definitions and a link farm. I'm sure you were trying to help, but that edit really would need a lot of improvement. Wikipedia is not the dictionary, though we do have a sister project, Wiktionary, which you might wish to look at if you want to write dictionary definitions. [...] From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to listen to him, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable.Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed Section

    Vlogosphere

    Meaning: Vlogosphere is a popular term used regularly by the vlogging community to describe itself online. Derivative of Blogosphere.
    Usage: "Congdon entered the vlogosphere answering Baron's Craigslist ad and later split from the enterprise to move into mainstream media."[3]
    Vlogger
    Meaning: Noun, One who videoblogs, or as the Wall Street Journal lightheartedly defined it: "Vlogger (noun): Blogger With Video Camera"[4].
    Usage: "One major online vlog aggregator, mefeedia.com, lists 2,580 vloggers who have created a total of over 100,000 videos since the site started tracking them one year ago."[4]
    To Vlog
    Meaning: Verb, the act of recording something on video and posting it onto a video blog.[5] Adopted by Serious Magic for their software “Vlog It”, bought by Adobe Systems in October 2006.[6]
    Usage: "I saw some policemen forcibly restraining a gentleman in an alley last night. I vlogged it."
    Usage: "Vlogging has opened a new medium for film-makers and musicians to get their work into the public domain."[7]

    [edit] Removed Section: Uses of video blogs

    I removed the section because it violates WP:NOR.

    A few editors including myself have spoken out against this section. It was one of the reasons the article was nominated for deletion nearly a year ago.Pdelongchamp 19:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Statements by editors

    From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_blogs

    • Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, [...] followed by a genre list that consists of original research.Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

    From Community sanction noticeboard: Request for blocking of user:Pdelongchamp on vlogging article

    • From what I can see, Pdelongchamp has been doing a great job keeping laundry lists, dictionary definitions, material "sourced" to blogs, and such things out of the article. You'd probably not do badly to listen to him, and work at improving the article. Most of the material I can see that Pdelongchamp is removing really isn't acceptable.Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Removed Section

    While there are many distinct uses and genres for videoblogs it is important to note that the majority are individual and personal. Rather than list individual videoblogs as examples, or provide a separate Uses of Video blogs page similar to Uses of Podcasting, this list simply covers the most common vlog genres:

    • Personal - Vlogs documenting the author's life, the recounting daily experiences, stories from their past, or the airing of their opinions on various topics.
    • News - Vlogs covering news events.
    • Collaborative (also collective or group) - Vlogs with a collaborative nature.
    • Citizen journalism - Vlogs "playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information"
    • Conflict (see war blog) - Vlogs covering an armed conflict 1st hand, i.e. Alive in Bagdad, whom received distinction at the 2006 Vloggies
    • Digital divide (aka. bridge vlog) - Vlogs covering a culture, usually a developing world, not for people within that culture but to give people outside that culture insight. As such many bridge vlogs are in English or another common language.
    • Screencast - Vlogs demonstrating software or webservices through the recording of onscreen actions, usually presented with voiceover narration
    • Political - Vlogs discussing political issues.
    • Environmental - Vlogs discussing environmental issues, nature, and natural history.
    • Exquisite corpse - Vlogs where each concurrent part in a narative is shot by a different author
    • Media - Vlogs analyzing television, documentaries and other mass media.
    • Entertainment - Vlogs producing "shows" or short films.
    • Re-vlog - Vlogs promoting videos from other videoblogs or third parties.
    • Movlog (aka. mobile video blog) - Vlogs updated via mobile video phone
    • Educational - Schools and universities using vlogs as a teaching and creative medium.
    • Behind the scenes - Vlogs showcasing backstage activities of film production or other arts and skills.
    • Tutorial - Vlogs offering advice, demonstrations, how-to's, and tutorials.
    • Travel - Vlogs serving as a travelogue, exploring different places around the world.
    • Religious - Vlogs discussing religious topics.
    • Magazine type or lifestyles - Vlogs discussing lifestyles and hobbies in a television magazine format.
    • Assignment-based - Vlogs consisting of assignments.
    • Vlog Anarchy - Vlogs covering all or multiple genres.
    • Business - Vlogs created by businesses for external marketing or internal business communications.
    • Deaf vlogs - Vlogs used by members of the Deaf community to be able to blog in their native or preferred sign languages, as opposed to spoken/written languages. Issues are usually related to some aspect of deafness from a cultural, social and pathological view. These Vlogs use the medium of video to be able to communicate messages, posts, and other ideas through a sign language.
    See also: Uses of podcasting Extended research on blogging genres, useful for context on genre in videoblogging – closely related, but on which no specific academic study has been done - can be found at BROG, the Blog Research on Genre project[8].

    [edit] Wikifying and Contributing

    Thanks to 128.135.98.105 for improving the article. I really really like what you've added. One question, what was the reasoning behind taking the timeline out of chronological order? I'm assuming it was to provide emphasis but I'm not sure it works well. I have no interest in changing it though. What does everyone else think? Pdelongchamp 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Redirect

    Blogs ar eincluded under the generic clip term and thus to merge the two small artuicles is a no brainer for our readersn to get access to the meaximum amount of information, SqueakBox 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Though video blogs may be referenced elsewhere, they are not the same as "video clips". Video clips can be anything. Video blogs may use video clips as a format/medium, but they are not the same thing. Oed 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    Well exactly, clips can be anything which includes blogs so it is appropriate. I am not saying they are the same thing, I am saying blogs is included in the more generic clips. It isnt appropriate for you to leave two versions of this, one at clips and one here, SqueakBox 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    No, video blogs aren't just blogs with video clips in them. Video blogs are not a subset of "video clips". I've removed all details about video blogs from the video clips page. Don't know why it was there in the first place. Oed 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well that is cos you arent reading what I said. I dont think much of a user who breaks 3rr and then indiocates they havent even read the arguments for doing so, so it'll have to wait until another day, and meanwhile all the redirects point to clips, SqueakBox 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't understand how you think I didn't read what you posted. Because I disagree? I said "video blogs aren't just blogs with video", which you claim isn't what you meant by "blogs is included in the more generic clips". Video blogs are far more than just a subset of video clips. I definitely think the video clips article should reference video blogs, but why not point to the entry already in place rather than try to subsume it? Oed 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Merge

    This article should be merged into video clip as they are a type of video cliup and dont really have enough notability to have a separate article, SqueakBox 23:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

    NO MERGE. Video blogs are not a subset of "video clips", inasmuch as text blogs are not a subset of all "text articles". Video clip is a generic term. Video blog is a mode and method of distributing serialized content. They deserve separate entries. If anything, the entry for "video clip" should be pared down, or deleted. Oed 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    What you mean clips arent notable but their sub-set blogs are? that sounds not right unless you just want our readers to read about video blogs but not about the more generic clips, SqueakBox 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    No. I specifically said that video blogs are not a subset of "video clips". And what I mean is that "video clip" is more a dictionary definition than an entry. Video clips are, simply, short pieces of video. They pre-date the Internet. Oed 23:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    I know you said so but I think you are wrong. Video clips may pre date the internet but what has that got to do with anything? The internet transformed the meaning of the word to incorporate a new internet phenomenon which is much more notable than are video blogs which are pretty obscure, and this has been referenced and is amply so way beyond your alleged dictionary definition. If you got rid ot that article you would leave a hole in our knowledge whereas that is not the case mergiong the content here. Perhaps this article should be redirected to blog instead, SqueakBox 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    It's starting to sound like you have a vendetta against video bloggers. If "video blog" were to be redirected (which I don't think it should be), it would make more sense to make it redirect to "blog", as you say, or "video diary". Maybe "video clip" should be better named? "Internet video clip", maybe? The fact that video clips pre-date the Internet has a lot do to with this discussion. You seem to think a video clip is something that exists only as an Internet phenomenon, and thus "contains" video blogs. You can think of it however you like. The fact remains that video blogging exists on its own right. Oed 23:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    NO MERGE. As pointed out Videoblogs are simply NOT the same things as video clips. To say that videoblogging = videoclips makes about as much sense as saying blogging = text clips. It shows a profound misunderstanding of the subject matter. I could understand if videoblogging was redirected to blogging perhaps... but then there is not video section on the blogging page and there is a tremendous amount of material and emphasis on videoblogging right now in popular culture (i.e. youtube) that warrants this article being given it's own page... not to mention the blogging page itself is already overrun with material.
    Anyone looking up "videoblogging" on wikipedia would find themselves utterly confused and disoriented being redircted to "video clips". The logic posed for redirecting simply does not stand up to scrutiny.--mmeiser 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    No Merge. Video Blogs are not only different from video clips, but maintain a unique sub-culture online. It would be more realistic to merge it with an article on Blogging, but even then, the time and effort above the need for a simple keyboard that it takes to maintain a text blog separates it as a medium. A video clip suggests that it is a brief section of a larger event, while a Vlog is in itself the event. Two very different things. --8472
    No. Doesn't make sense.--Alf 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Already reverted

    Underpinnings was already reverted. My mistake. Pdelongchamp (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)