Talk:Weblog/archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Blogs Have Ruined Google

Someone should post about how Blogs game google's pagerank system to the point where you can't hardly search for anything nowadays without having to sift through 10 pages of blog links. The "link whoring" nature of blogs undermine systems like Google and turn them from a useful tool for finding relevant information and into a "internet moron's opinion engine". "Linkback" makes the problem even worse, since it automagically googlespams TWO blogs at the same time in an automated manner. Kind of like a poor man's "search engine optimization". Naturally, I couldn't contribute this content myself without being NPOV. :)

Actually, dear anonymous contributor, I find the opposite to be the case. Often when I'm searching for something and can't remember the exact terms used on the page, I'll find that some Weblog author has saved me, by posting about it using the same synonyms that I used. If there weren't so many Weblogs, that wouldn't work. -- Mpt 01:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't understand this whole arguement that blogs are cluttering google's index. You want a topic to be linked to and desribed from many different angles and perspectives in order to make it easier to find. People typically link to 'official' web pages when they're blogging on a topic, so these pages get a big ranking boost as a result of blogs. It's true that blog software tends to be well designed, to allow blogs to be easily (and heavily) interlinked, but the result is that bloggers build a kind of network of trust and kudos. Bloggers who write useless/boring blogs have less google power, while respected people gain more incoming links, and therefore more google rank. Often a well written blog will provide useful answers to questions you might be searching on, or links to good websites for further information. Call it 'gaming the pagerank system' if you like, but this is exactly the kind of information which google relies upon to decide which websites are 'best'. The real pagerank villains are spamdexers, who it should be noted, are often the same scum who spam wikis (see http://www.chongqed.org) -- Nojer2 23:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


On the interlinked part, it should be noted in the article as something that distinguishes it easily from just an online diary - I mean, its not just a soapbox/diary/etc. posted in digital form, the fact that links can form and thus cohesion is quite significant. Many student movements/demonstrations have been successfully carried out (or at least gained attention, demonstrations against software patents, anyone?) due to this sort of cohesion, that's slightly built in stone. -- Natalinasmpf 04:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of weblog services

Under "Creating and publishing weblogs", there are 12 services and 6 server software examples given. Should there be some criteria for inclusion in the main article on weblogs? Could we have a category of weblog management software? (most of which are in Category:Open source content management systems anyway) Or maybe "list of weblog services and software"? --Christopherlin 02:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Link Blog

A description (or new page?) of Link blog would be cool! - Sridhar 05:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot is not a weblog

Could anyone provide evidence that Slashdot should be included in this article? silsor 18:02, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Bloggie Awards Notable citation - in this case bbc news. Stirling Newberry 18:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Silsor that Slashdot is not a blog, and I'm a long-time visitor to Slashdot. --Stevietheman 19:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Notable citations please. Stirling Newberry 19:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No citations needed. It's a matter of whether Slashdot fits the definition of a weblog, and it does not. Besides, you're asking us to prove a negative in terms of finding citations. --Stevietheman 19:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We are descriptive, not perscriptive. If there is a controversy over the definition of blogging, then document the controversy. If there isn't anything to document, then write your own blog post on "why do so many idiots think that slash dot is a web log". Who knows it could be picked up and become notable. Stirling Newberry 21:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Slashdot site itself says "News for Nerds", thus it's a news site rather than a blog. I'm not going to revert your Slashdot additions because of this conflict, but I think we have a 2-to-1 consensus (at this time) that Slashdot isn't a blog. And being descriptive, since Slashdot never calls itself a blog, therefore, a description of it cannot call it a blog, even if others errantly do so. --Stevietheman 21:46, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot does not come close to fitting the description of a "weblog". It is a (1)commercial (2)news site that posts (3)articles with (4)very little writing by its authors, was created (5)before the subculture slang term "weblog" was even invented, and (6)does not consider itself a weblog. Honestly though, I don't even need to be listing these points, since the burden is on you to demonstrate that Slashdot should be included in this article, rather than on me to have to write this down to demonstrate that it should not. silsor 21:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

There are commercial blogs. They deal with news. They have articles. Many blogs have little writing by authors beyond a quote and a response. You just went 0 for 4 on a definition. And cool down. Stirling Newberry 21:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Silsor's position, with the caveat that blogs sometimes have the characteristics of news sites and sometimes are commercial. But that doesn't mean that a news site that calls itself a news site is a blog. And to suggest Silsor is 0 for 4 is the only text I see that's not cool, esp. since Silsor is generally correct. --Stevietheman 22:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The RFC me for it.Stirling Newberry 22:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No need for an RFC... you're just wrong on this point.  :) --Stevietheman 22:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you can get the BBC to retract their article, maybe I will listen. Stirling Newberry 22:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revered news organizations get technology-related concepts wrong all the time. I suggest you deploy some critical thinking on this rather than just trusting one news article. --Stevietheman 22:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and declare the Slashdot content void due to a consistent 2 to 1 agreement that it be excluded. Slashdot is a news site, not a blog. If anyone else wants to "vote" on this, please do, and if the vote sways the decision to the other side, then the Slashdot content can return. I think this is only fair. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry called my removal of the slashdot=weblog sentences "unsourced POV". Maybe this would be true if I were adding unsourced material, but in this case I am removing a statement from the article which several people question and hasn't really been backed up. The only evidence supplied that slashdot=blog is a citation in BBC news about a "Bloggies" site that once called Slashdot a "blog"—if you look at the actual "Bloggies" site itself, it defines "blog" to be any page with dated entries. Maybe I should nominate Wikipedia for the next round of voting. silsor 15:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now my removals are "censorship", according to the Stirling Newberry's edit summaries. silsor 08:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

You don't have a cite, your "definition" was, to put it nicely, idiolectic, and now you and Stevie are running a revert war. The material has notable cites, you have none. That's censorship and bad faith. Do it again, and it is straight up vandalism, Stirling Newberry 13:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My cite is www.slashdot.org. There is nowhere on that site that declares itself a blog. So I'm reversing your changes, and it's not vandalism. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 15:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to cite anything! I am questioning whether a statement is true, and removing it from the page unless it can be shown to be true. If I were adding a statement that you questioned the truth of, then I would need to cite sources. You can't just insert ridiculous claims on pages and then demand proof of their falsehood when people try to remove them. silsor 19:31, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Does not document the question. Stop vandalising the page in your POV mongering. Stirling Newberry 16:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Will you two please stop accusing each other? Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and notice that this edit war is in no way vandalism, by either side. However, it is detrimental to keep reverting, especially over something this trivial. Talk it out please. Rhobite 17:45, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop reverting, as I don't like violating Wikipedia rules. But I will say this: Two people have rejected Stirling's cite. And wikicracy is supposed to decide these matters. I've been a user of Slashdot for many years, and I know for a total fact it's not a blog. But perhaps the only true way to find out for those who are clueless about this would be to submit an "Ask Slashdot" article at Slashdot and ask them! I'm confident this assertion (and that's all it is) that Slashdot is a blog will be handily rejected. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 17:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the point "Revered news organizations get technology-related concepts wrong all the time" is very true. I'm sure you could find other examples of mass-media describing slash-dot as a blog, but that doesn't mean it is one. I think I may remember reading this in Guardian-online (who constantly and somewhat overenthusiastically bang on about blogs all the time). The problem here, and the problem with describing 'blog' in general, is that it really isn't very well defined. Like other tech buzzwords, the definition gets twisted by the media to make a big story, and at the same time it gets adopted by big-business to hype-up some new market. The word starts out with a reasonbly clear and obvious definition, and ends up being used to mean just about anything. It's tempting to use Slashdot as an example of a blog, because it's a big, popular, and well-known. A journalist trying to make an impact needs to drop names like this. And it's tempting for authors here to include it, when writing a section titled Blogging goes mainstream, but really... it's not a blog. Wikipedia maybe 'descriptive not prescriptive', but there's no reason to repeat the mistakes journalists make -- Nojer2 20:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Let's copyedit the following:

Slashdot is one particularly influential technology blog which often breaks stories on exploits of computer security vulnerabilities.

to read:

Slashdot, a technology news site considered by some to be a blog, is particularly influential in how it often breaks stories on exploits of computer security vulnerabilities.

How's that? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 18:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blogging and Journalism

Major deficit on this page is a section on blogging/journalism conflicts. I'll take a crack at it later unless someone else wants it. Stirling Newberry 19:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't want it, but my view is that bloggers are like editors, which is one honorable role for journalists. A blog is basically an individualized running table of contents for all online periodicals (etc). (My sig used to say "I edit the Net") (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)

Committee to Protect Bloggers

I put up the link to Committee to Protect Bloggers here before I had created that page. I apologize. I have created that page now and hope that the link will remain in this post. The Committee is not a project I am involved with, but I believe it to be very important. Go check it out, or the article here on it before you revert...please.

This article refers to an entity that is too new to have relevance for an encyclopedia. Don't be surprised if somebody submits it for delete consideration shortly. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 05:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Like I said in my user talk, I would support an external link, but the article should be deleted. It's an entity only days old. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 06:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote in the Vote to Remove page for CPB: I think that failure to include this page and a link to it from Weblog leaves an inacurate story being told regarding the political climate around blogging. We read that the DNC and RNC accredited bloggers, but not about how bloggers in other places are facing state repression for blogging? That doesn't seem benificial to wikipedia's coverage of blogs.

Is there discussion in your blog entry here of bloggers facing state repression? --Mdog 07:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add text to the article regarding the repression of bloggers, and please cite your sources either in talk or in the article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 08:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blog hosting sites list probably getting out of hand

The hosting sites listed in the "Creating and publishing weblogs" section need to be notable in an encyclopedia sense to be eligible for listing. However, I'm concerned that some of those listed are not indeed notable. I would normally just remove the sites that don't currently have articles, but I would like to ask first if anyone believes any of the external links in the list point to somewhat notable hosting sites. Please cite sources or Google statistics to back up your selections. At some point soon, I would like to trim this list down. Thanks. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd go so far as to get rid of all of them. External links are supposed to be informative, not just sites that are somehow related to the article. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --fvw* 02:00, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
    • I generally agree with you, but I also accept the content where these are listed because it would seem useful to list a few prominent examples. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 02:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blogs and (vs?) Wikis

I'm a 'non-blogger' and pretty ignorant about them, but does the Blog idea relate to the Wiki concepts? ie - socially, and technologically, the concepts seem related (especially the wiki style in 'c2': http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WebLog). How are they related 'historically'? Who created blogs and when?

Reverted intro edits

- Like any other website, any Internet user can read a blog.

Umm no, there are blogs behind firewalls and security that are not accessible, just like any other web site.

- What distinguishes a blog from other kinds of website is how quickly and easily the author posts new entries. The blogging software automatically converts the entry to HTML, adds a time stamp, posts it online, and archives old posts.

Umm no, there is software for rapid updating which is not a blog. Not all blogging software automatically converts writing to HTML, and it isn't a distinguishing feature of blogs versus any other web page program such as Dreamweaver. Stirling Newberry 03:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Considering that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, the terminology section seems to have grown out of hand. Many of the terms are rarely used or even completely made up, like "muvilog" and "auralog". I don't believe these terms have ever been used to describe blogs. Other terms like "flog" have been used, but "photoblog" or "photolog" are far more popular terms for photography blogs. Rhobite 16:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, the terminology section (Common terms) is growing out of hand. Some of terms, I haven't seen used anywhere except on this Wiki and this Wiki seems to be the source for a lot more other pages. So every other page takes this Wiki as gospel and quotes these terminology. These terms are the particular ones I am talking about - Blogsnob, Blogorrhoea and Blogfoo. superstarksa 9:59, June 9, 2005 (EST)

External links

I have no personal attachment to any of the recently removed links, but it behooves anyone who rips out so much content to explain each change. Please do this. It's nothing personal. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 00:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is not a web guide, the default for links is out, not in. Stirling Newberry 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting until I see an explanation for each one. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 00:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to call for mediation on this article. I cannot deal with the obstinance and arrogance of a particular someone who seems to just want to pick fights (and not be a good contributor) any longer. Content cannot simply be wiped out without explanation... it's anti-wiki. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you both feel the need to have a revert war over this tiny little quibble. To weigh in on the debate, I agree with every one of Stirling's removals except for blogring.net. Stevie, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - it's not a link farm. Links to irrelevant, spammed, or minor sites should be removed from articles. Rhobite 01:55, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
As an editor for almost a year, and if you would notice earlier link removals I've completed in this article, certainly I do understand that Wikipedia is not a link farm. My concern here was that Newberry was not deferring to the other active editors of this article (not just "Stevie the king") in describing his changes. It's about common courtesy. That's my whole point. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The following links re removed:

They have no encyclopedic content. Mikkalai 02:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mikkalai for being so thorough and respecting the process. I salute you. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slashdot is a blog

At least, all notable citiations have said so (BBC) and it lists itself with the Truth Laid Bear blogging eco system rankings (which is a volitional act, that is, someone at slash dot thinks slash dot should be list). Googling this "controversy" comes up with a few links on a few small blogs. Thus "some" is inaccurate weasel wording.

Stirling Newberry 15:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an important topic which we all need to come to a consensus on before making further reverts/edits to these parts of the article. Though, as a technology professional, I would never refer to slashdot as a blog, the mainstream press would definitely categorize slashdot as a blog, along with sites like Think Secret (a recent Christian Science Monitor article grouped them together when talking about First Amendment Rights [1]). Of course, just because some mainstream press sources misuse a word does not change its actual meaning. I personally think that our article should state what a pure "blog" is, and then acknowledge that the mainstream press and other sources have expanded the definition of a blog. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:13, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
"Misuses". Wiki is descriptive, not perscriptive. As a blogging professional, slashdot is refered to as a blog constantly, as noted, by bloggers themselves. Our job is to document. So far there has not been one notable and documentable source on the "slash dot is not a blog" side, and certainly nothing to assert that "some" people think of it as a blog. Stirling Newberry 16:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am in agreement with you that our article would be inaccurate if we didn't note that many, maybe even most people would classify Slashdot as a blog. However, it would be similarly unencyclopedic to not mention that the status of these blogs is highly debated in the internet-saavy community (as evidenced on Wikipedia on this talk page right here). I've seen these debates on many internet forums, including Plastic, Metafilter and Slashdot itself [2]. In fact, the consensus in the Slashdot community in that post I referenced seems to be that Slashdot users would not classify themselves as bloggers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
The inaccuracy I saw was "debate"--would be nice to see a source for this "debate." The accurate wording is indeed "some believe..." 205.145.64.64 16:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. "Some believe" is accurate for a minority position. In this case it would be more accurate to say, "which some don't believe is a blog" - since, to date, there has not been one notable, documentable source from those who don't believe it. As for slashdot's status as a blog being debated, there has been at least on conference session on this topic, and the evidence of this talk page is that the matter is being debated. Even if those arguing against it have a thinness of notable documentary sources for their position. There clearly is a controversy, the question is what is documentable. I've listed my sources, and gotten little back for my trouble but three revert wars and ex cathedra assertions. I am going to consider the matter settled until someone on the other side of this discussion produces notable and documentable evidence for their postion.

Stirling Newberry 17:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast

"ex cathedra"... "descriptive, not perscriptive"... Let's welcome Miss Diane Chambers to the bar, shall we? Note: the term is "prescriptive."

Points I'd like to make:

  1. Newberry's single cite has already been clearly discounted by two other active article editors, while not currently backed up by any other active editors. So Newberry currently has no effective cites. The burden of proof is indeed on Newberry, and that burden has not been met as of yet.
  2. Slashdot.org itself is the most significant cite to make in countering Newberry's claim. This is not prescriptive. It's a description of what Slashdot and most of its users call Slashdot, and that's a news site.
  3. During the "revert war" regarding this material, Newberry accused others who removed the controversial Slashdot content as committing POV--this is impossible for two reasons: a) one, neither Silsor nor I added the content in the first place, and b) we completely removed the content via revert--leaving out the two insignificant blurbs about Slashdot (my favorite news site, btw) doesn't create POV. Note that Newberry's accusations came before I and the anon made partial edits to this content.
  4. Newberry doesn't have the sole right to determine the content here. Instead, a group of editors involved here should make a consensus decision according to normal Wikipedia practice. Certainly, we need to defer to the active editors of this article when making consensus decisions, as after all, all of us have "slaved" over this article over a long period of time, and we deserve due respect.
  5. Re: a debate about whether Slashdot is a blog or not, the debate within this talk is off-limits with regards to encyclopedic relevance--this should be obvious, as to view it otherwise would be a conflict of interest. Further, while I respect the existence of a minor debate, Slashdot users (according to the link supplied by DropDeadGorgias) have come to the conclusion that Slashdot isn't a blog. For further example, let's say millions of people call George W. Bush a chimp--does that make him one? Of course not, he's a human being. So, just because Slashdot is referred to as a blog, and errantly so, does not make it one. Errors in describing an entity are not normally encyclopedic.
  6. On top of everything, the Slashdot content probably adds no significant value to this article. Therefore, perhaps we should just remove it all to end this controversy. Is the very small point the Slashdot blurbs make worth all this controversy?

— Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I started a poll here about whether Slashdot should be considered a news site or a blog. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 13:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Barring any further responses from Newberry, we should probably call a vote of editors to make a final decision on the Slashdot text in question. Any more discussion before a vote? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 19:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC

Slashdot has all the features of a "group weblog". (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)
But that doesn't make it a weblog. Slashdot is a pre-weblog creation and contains news discussion site features that are separate from the usual blog features. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 15:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Moliere made a famous joke about Monsieur Joudain, who'd been "speaking prose" his whole life without knowing it. Similarly, Marc Andreesen kept a weblog without knowing it. Slashdot is a group weblog with extra features, no matter if they admit it-- there isn't any reasonable definition that includes bOING bOING, Metafilter, Fark, The Agonist, Haddock, Crooked Timber, etc (all group weblogs) but excludes Slashdot. (Jorn)
In short, I agree this is debatable. Very debatable. Perhaps I would agree that Slashdot is an entity that's "beyond a blog". It most definitely has a superset of features normally found in blogs. And if you're interested in extending the application of "blog" to any entity that includes its usual features, we might have to start calling all kinds of non-blog sites blogs before long. And this isn't quite reasonable. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 16:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wittgenstein is famous for demonstrating that the word "game" has no inclusive definition-- some things are more game-like, and some are less. Slashdot fits the ideal for 'group weblog' very closely (maybe 'group weblog with editors' would be more exact). The Drudge Report lacks one critical feature-- the reverse chronological layout. Andreesen's What's New page lacked the less critical feature of personal reactions. Web journals lack the mootly-critical feature of being link-oriented. (Jorn)

The fact that this issue is so contentious seems to support my proposal that the intro should be about ambiguity. (BTW, the guys who maintain the Slash system that Slashdot uses say it's good for managing weblogs.) --robotwisdom 01:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Metablogging

consider the inclusion of the term "metablogging", or writing/thinking/blogging about blogging

-Ryan 3:33 PM Feb. 15 2005

Intro

As the guy who coined the term, I'm gravely dissatisfied with this whole article.

When I coined it, 'weblog' was a synonym for server log, and blogs were called 'news pages' or 'links pages'. My intention was to specify a page that logged my discoveries on the Web in reverse order, so the critical elements of the term were that each entry described a link, and that they were in reverse order.

I was aware of about a dozen sites that used that format, mostly centered on Dave Winer's Scripting News and his Frontier software, but even Dave didn't follow a strict reverse ordering (which I considered a design error).

Everybody had links pages-- the Drudge Report was one of the most popular, but nobody thinks of it as a blog. To me, the 'ideal' blog includes a link in each entry, follows strict reverse order, archives old entries, and is maintained by a single person who gives their personal opinion about each link.

There were probably online diaries/journals at the time, and some may have been in reverse order, but I still don't consider them weblogs/blogs, although this usage has become so popular I don't think it can be reversed.

The spelling "web log" has never been acceptable to me. I don't see any difference between a weblog and a blog. Neither is a "web application"-- it's just a type of webpage, and can be crafted by hand. There's no truth to the claim about 'blog' disambiguating 'weblog' from 'server log'-- it was just a shorthand, coined by Peter Meerholz (sp?) of PeterMe.

Some weblogs have multiple editors, but I think these should be called "group weblogs" and recognized as a deviation from the 'ideal'. I can't imagine a weblog being maintained in other than reverse order, because readers would complain-- the idea is to be able to see at a glimpse whether there's new content at the top of the page. (Putting so much junk at the top that the first entry isn't visible is another design error.) The commenting system is secondary and doesn't need to be mentioned in the intro. I think it's fine to mention that many weblogs are 'topical' and describe the range of topics, but that's not really important for the intro.

(I will draft a new intro and post it in a bit.) (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)

Yeah, you coined it. Uh huh. Anyway, the point is, it matters not at all what you intended blogs to be, Wikipedia documents what they are. If you delete any salient facts, they will be put right back in. Period. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 14:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also, hopefully, you will post your changes in talk and get suggestions before doing major alterations to the article. Otherwise, you might get your feelings hurt, esp. if you're not accustomed to the Wikipedia editing methods. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 14:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First draft of revised intro:

The term "weblog" (or its shortened form "blog") is not yet well-defined. When it was originally coined by Jorn Barger on December 17, 1997, he was describing an ongoing daily log of his readings on the Web, in reverse order, with personal reactions, pullquotes, and occasional images. Archived original

It has since come to be used as a synonym for "Web diary" or "Web journal", but the original intent was to describe a "log" of Web links, so journals wouldn't strictly qualify.

In order of importance, the 'ideal' features of a weblog are:

- updated frequently (exception: 'orphaned' blogs)

- entries displayed in reverse order

- entries include links, with commentary (exception: diary entries)

- old entries archived

- single author (exception: group weblogs)

Most blogs are maintained using blogging software that automatically specifies a date and time for each entry, and may offer a comments-page where readers can post their own reactions. Most blogging software archives each entry as a separate page with a 'permalink' that allows others to link it individually.

Blogs naturally reflect the interests of the blogger, but many blogs try to specialize in a single theme, which may be anything from politics to celebrities to junk food. (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)

I moved this section to the top, so that the discussion page would (eventually) mirror the sections of the article page. Since each subsection grows asynchronously, forcing the major sections to be chronological is just an arbitrary rule. Imho. (Jorn)
It's in order of discussion per the normal goings-on in the Wikipedia. There's very few examples in the Wikipedia of talks "mirroring" the articles. Your discussion is important, but it belongs in chronological order with other discussions. Maybe it would be better to concentrate on the content you want changed rather than where the talk is placed. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 15:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress. I've been paying special attention to interface design for 20+ years. Just because you mistake me for a newbie, doesn't mean I should withhold my expertise. ;^/ (Jorn)
I'm not suggesting you withhold anything, but there are norms of discussion in the Wikipedia. That's all. No need to get so personal so fast. After you've been involved in the Wikipedia for a while, you'll understand where I'm coming from. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 16:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have some issues with this new intro. Describing certain characteristics of a weblog as "ideal" goes against our neutral point of view policy. It would also not be appropriate for you to attribute personal remarks to yourself, e.g. "Jorn Barger believes these are the ideal features of a weblog: ..." Some may believe that the term has been corrupted by online diaries, but it's more important for us to describe the concept in a neutral manner. I don't know if you should mention your own name in the first paragraph of the article, either. In addition to the conflict of interest, I don't think you or Dave Winer or anyone else belongs in the intro. In a similar case, neither Internet nor History of the Internet mentions Vint Cerf in the intro. Rhobite 20:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
As a philosophical term, 'ideal' doesn't imply a value judgment, but I accept that people will misread it that way, so some other phrasing would be preferable. (Hasn't this same problem been debated a million times on this site already?) I don't mind moving my name out of the intro altogether, but the impression I get is that journalists are picking it out anyway (do a query on 'Jorn' at Technorati and there's tons of Spanish language weblogs mentioning the 1997 date). The difference between the original meaning and the more recent meaning needs to be one of the main themes of the intro, though.
My view of language is that definitions aren't really arbitrary-- the word 'weblog' breaks down into 'web' and 'log', and there's a definite history to how and why they were combined, and how and why that combination caught on-- because it fit a certain combination of concepts that a certain set of people shared. It's only in this sense that there's an 'ideal' weblog-- maybe call it 'archetypal' or 'prototypical'? (Jorn)
Sure, point-of-view disputes happen all the time. In this instance I think we should stay away from the word "ideal". "Archetypal" is better. As for the origin of the word "weblog", I think you're correct, we need to better emphasize the original intent of the term. I'm in favor of a brief mention in the intro, and more in the "blogging begins" section. At the same time, we should recognize that use of the word was quickly expanded to a broader "online journal" meaning. I don't want the intro to turn into an argument over definitions - see the article capitalism for a subpar intro written by people who get caught up in defining terms exactly. Rhobite 22:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of discussing the origins of the term weblog, but in the first paragraph of the intro?... absolutely not. The first paragraph of an encyclopedia article _always_ describes what the thing is, in a nutshell, not where it came from and other lower-order material such as that. I definitely want to recognize the guy (hehe) who coined the term, and offer reflection on how the term evolved to what we understand today. But, and I'm sure you can see this by looking at many Wikipedia articles, they generally have a flow that places origins of a term either low in the intro or as a small section in the article after the intro. I don't see any special reason to upset that flow for this article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second draft of revised intro:

The term "weblog" (or its shortened form "blog") is not yet well-defined. When it was originally coined in 1997, weblogs were ongoing daily logs of people's readings on the Web, in reverse order, with personal reactions, pullquotes, and occasional images. Archived original

It has since come to be used as a synonym for "Web diary" or "Web journal", but the original intent was to describe a "log" of Web links, so journals wouldn't strictly qualify.

In order of importance, the 'archetypal' features of a weblog are:

  • entries displayed in reverse order
  • updated frequently (exception: 'orphaned' blogs)
  • entries include links, with commentary (exception: diary entries)
  • old entries archived
  • single author (exception: group weblogs)

Most blogs are maintained using blogging software that automatically specifies a date and time for each entry, and may offer a comments-page where readers can post their own reactions. Most blogging software archives each entry as a separate page with a 'permalink' that allows others to link it individually.

Blogs naturally reflect the interests of the blogger, but many blogs try to specialize in a single theme, which may be anything from politics to celebrities to junk food. --robotwisdom 16:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I note above, term origin is lower-order material, so the first paragraph I cannot accept. I also don't accept that the term isn't well-defined (or at least that statement is too strong). It indeed can be defined with community input, and that's why we're here. Sure, there might be some fuzzy parts of the definition that may fall into dispute, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it.
I like the idea of describing the archetypal features of a weblog somewhere in the intro section, but "order of importance" probably isn't necessary and it feels POV.
In general, I'd like any new material to fold into what's currently there. A total wholesale replacement probably isn't necessary. Just make what's there better. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 04:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Stevie here. While robotwisdom makes good suggestions, I don't think we need to replace the intro. A brief mention of the original intent of the term would do fine in the intro section, but it shouldn't be the main focus. It's more important for us to describe the current phenomenon of blogging. Also, having the first sentence basically say "We don't know what a weblog is", is not a great way to start an article. This is why I hate getting caught up in definitions. Rhobite 19:04, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's take it a sentence at a time: "A weblog, web log or simply a blog, is a web application which contains periodic posts on a common webpage. "

  • There are web applications for creating and maintaining blogs, but the blog itself is NOT an application, it's just a style of webpage.
  • The form "web log" is only used by 'tourists'.
  • The posts don't have to be periodic (which implies a schedule).
  • "Common" is unclear.

So the useful parts of the existing first sentence are: weblog, blog, posts, and webpage. If you don't want to start with the ambiguity problem, how about: "Any webpage that accumulates posts might be called a weblog (or 'blog' for short)."? --robotwisdom 00:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History/Precursors

By starting (implicitly) from the widest possible definition of weblog, this section effectively treats the precursors of the-Web-in-general, or chat-in-general, which belong in some other article. What should be included:

Vannevar Bush's "Memex" proposal in 1945 included a description of trails of links.

Marc Andreesen's What's New page, started on 14 June 1993, had all the features of a weblog except personal reactions to each page linked. Archived copy

Justin Hall's Links from the Underground started in 1994. history

William Gibson coined the expression "pre-surfing" in 1996.

Dave Winer's "Scripting News", begun in 1996 or 1997 attracted a large regular readership.

The Drudge Report was probably the first webpage to scan many new periodicals as soon as they were posted and link their most interesting stories.

Slashdot was already popular before the term 'weblog' was coined.

References

History/Blogging begins

This section should probably start with Dave Winer and Frontier, which included a 'suite' of commands for maintaining 'news pages'. Many early weblogs used Frontier as their content management system (aka blogging software).

After I introduced the term 'weblog', Raphael Carter's excellent Honeyguide Weblog was the second to adopt the term, and it took off from there. It took many months to build readership back then-- apparently it wasn't until 1999 that there was enough interest to start a mailing list, which I first did using DejaNews (it's still archived at Google groups: link).

I moved it to eGroups, which was bought by Yahoo and I haven't looked to see if they've kept it up-- I abandoned it at some point.

Establishing the dates for apps like LiveJournal, Pitas, Pyra, and GrokSoup may put them in this section. (I'm not sure this section needs to separate from the next.)

As blogging grew, there was quickly a backlash of people arguing that blogging was self-indulgent and a waste of webspace (ha!), and that a handful of weblogs were plenty. Mainstream media was very slow to take blogs seriously, and the debate about whether blogging should count as journalism arose very early.

Who were the early celebrity bloggers, and when did they start? Wil Wheaton was very early, as I recall.

There were plenty of hot topics that got debated in the early days, but I'll have to dig back to make a list-- happily, pretty much everything is still available.

Ummm, it would be helpful if you proved you introduced the term 'weblog'. Realize how others will look at you coming in here in proclaiming such a thing. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 16:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not controversial-- even William Safire credited me in the NY Times. (Jorn)
I think you miss my point. It's just we have no way of verifying people in the Wikipedia. Even if William Safire credited a particular person, I, as a reader, have no way of connecting you to that person. See what I mean? But in the end, it's no matter really. Expert or not, every contributor's content is evaluated on the merit of the content itself and is subject to relentless copyediting. Hope you're ready.  :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New page: Political blogs?

I think the topic of blogs in politics is always going to be controversial, and should get a separate page to keep the debate separate. That page can be briefly summarized on the main page, with the link.

There were lots of blogs at all points on the political spectrum, from the earliest days. The ability of blogs to draw attention to stories the mainstream media was underplaying, was exactly proportional to the readership of the blog, or to the number of those readers who amplified the story via links in their own blogs.

There are plenty of stories that bloggers got to before the majors, just like there were many that Drudge got to before the majors. Blogs were very good at detecting inconsistencies between different sources, and places where a major media outlet had omitted key facts from a story.

But I think for the first few years the sense of polarization was much milder-- during the Clinton years there were Clinton-bashers, but I don't think many blogs were primarily devoted to Clinton-bashing. (I'm no expert on this, because I ignored that development.) The Monica Lewinski scandal evolved in parallel with early blogs. (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)

I think this is an excellent idea, and I've gone ahead and created Category:Political weblogs, a subcategory of Category:Weblogs. I don't have a huge amount of time to help with the political weblog article, so that may be a red link for a little while - unless you jump in and start it, of course. Be bold! Once political weblog is written, we can summarize it in the political weblog section here, and link to it using the {{mainarticle}} template. Rhobite 19:49, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. There's definitely mounds of content available for such an article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 02:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Classification of weblog-types

This has to be handled multi-dimensionally. First try:

- link-oriented or diary-oriented

- topic-oriented or general

- news-oriented or resource-oriented

- single editor, multiple editors, or unedited

- single poster or multiple posters

- commentable or non-commentable

- long entries or short

- personal/intimate or professional/distant

- illustrated or text-only

- topically-sorted archives or chronological only (Jorn Barger, 6 March 2005)

No picture of the blogger logo?

no B? Where's my B at?! I want some orange here!! ;)Lockeownzj00 22:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of a picture, but I don't think the lead picture should be a logo. A screenshot of a typical blog would be nice, especially an open-content licensed blog. Rhobite 22:18, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a png of my original 'weblog' (though it's not quite archetypal): Image:Weblog.png --robotwisdom 17:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's great, I put it into the article. What should the caption be? "The first entry from the first weblog to call itself a weblog" is kind of klunky. silsor 17:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
It's not actually the first entry-- I'd have to cheat to get that and the title in the same image (though it's a reasonable form of cheating, I guess). How about "The first use of the word "weblog""? --robotwisdom 17:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it was, then that would be fantastic. silsor 17:39, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
You have my word (no pun intended). Notice the nerdy interCap! --robotwisdom 18:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's true. That is the first use of the word "weblog". I still think we should have a screenshot of a typical modern blog, and probably the posting interface for MT or Blogger or something. Rhobite 18:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

External links II

It's probably time we took a good look at each of the remaining links and discuss. Let's try to arrive t a consensus as to what we keep and not keep. Sound good? It seems to me that all the links listed now were added in good faith as places where one can get more info that rounds out the topic. If they're not of sufficient quality, then we should evaluate that. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 16:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of the ones you put back, I think that the Rebecca Blood and Kuro5hin story have to go. The rest I can live with. The Rebecca Blood essay is thoughts on a personal blog and the Kuro5hin story isn't relevant to the article. silsor 17:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'll take a new look at these later this afternoon and report back. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 17:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I support including Rebecca's essay-- it has lots of history, though she arrived late from my pov. Here's where Dave Winer introduced the "News Page Suite" for Frontier, which became the first blogging software: 23 Jan 1997
And here's my weblogs FAQ from Sept 1999, which tracks early press coverage and anti-blog backlash: http://www.robotwisdom.com/weblogs/ --robotwisdom 17:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is the first thread from the first weblogs mailinglist, debating definitions among other topics: July 1999 I'm trying to find a copy of Chris Gulker's list of blogs from 1997, which was the first, when they were called news pages. --robotwisdom 18:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Here's the second mailinglist, at Yahoo (originally eGroups, but Yahoo bought them out): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weblogs/ --robotwisdom 19:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think Rebecca's essay isn't as personal as Silsor describes, as she only makes brief reference to her own as an example. It's a decent overview, and I think we should keep it.
As for the Kuro5hin story, I like it because it serves as a critique of blogging, which can act as a zeitgeist for the current culture surrounding blogging, which some of sound mind find ridiculous. So it stands to reason that we would want to round out people's "study" of this subject with material like this. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 02:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with Silsor, at least on the K5 story. I have a hard time linking to a GNAA troll from a highly visible Wikipedia article. Sure, parts of it are funny. Other parts are just trollish. We're not a link farm. I think the Rebecca Blood article could stay or go. One more thing, Slashdot should at least be mentioned here. Some people, including me, think it's a weblog, or at least very similar to one. We can say that it's debatable, but let's not remove all mention of Slashdot. Rhobite 18:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
We're not a link farm, but we link to articles that expand the visitors' understanding of a topic. So, we'll just disagree on this point about the K5 article. I assume consensus thus far is to remove it.
Re: Slashdot, twasn't me who removed the content this time, but I do have to say that the latest attempt at a content compromise (by your work) is certainly less objectionable than before. And sometimes, that's all I and others can aim for. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 21:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New war correspondent

>>Blogs also arose amongst soldiers serving in the Iraq war. Such milblogs have become the modern >>version of a war correspondent. Is this true/NPOV? ~Dpr

No, it's not really true or neutral. I changed it, thanks for pointing it out. Rhobite 08:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well done. --AStanhope 15:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Corporate blogs

I added a few sentences to this section on NPOV grounds. The section was strongly anti-corporate, so I balanced the discussion with an example from Powerline and the lack of evidence that corporate blogs were diminishing the growth of the blogoshere. --Casey Abell 01:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revert Inanity?

Just noticed that "Astanhope" reverted out my example of an employer defending a blogger when he was attacked. Any reason for the revert, beyond simple dislike of the Powerline blog? The only justification given is "inanity." The examples of employers punishing bloggers have remained.

It's silly to get into a dispute about such a quibble. But if examples of employers punishing bloggers are allowed in the article, why can't an example of an employer defending a blogger be included? Seems like a straightforward NPOV balancing.

At any rate, I think a better justification for the revert than "inanity" should be provided.

I have decided to put back the example of an employer defending a blogger. The example is sourced so readers can judge of its "inanity." If the example is reverted out again, I'll take the matter to Wikipedia mediation. --Casey Abell 15:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Terms with separate stub articles

Here is a list of articles that I propose be rolled into the main weblog article:

These are linked from the "Common terms" section, and are all short are only linked to by the main weblog article and each other. Maybe fork the list of jargon into a new article like List of weblog terms? --Christopherlin 06:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be "Blog"?

Google search for "weblog" = 71,900,000
Google search for "blog" = 146,000,000
Stancel 20:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any rule that suggests that Google hits are the sole determinant of how articles are named. That said, it's well-known that "weblog" is the full name of the thing, so it leads. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 01:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Types of weblogs

The "types of weblogs" section is -- there's no other word for it -- stupid. As evidenced by today's spam war, it's an invitation for every old blogger to come along and add his blog as an example. More importantly, the types listed here are artificial. Do we really have to say that some blogs talk about religion and other blogs talk about the news? I think readers are smart enough to understand that blogs can and do talk about a wide range of topics. If this section should exist at all, it should be a list of archetypes, not a mere list of conversation topics. Archetypes might be culled from the existing list: Personal, corporate, political/opinion, etc. Once we get into "religious" and "directory" weblogs we've gone much too far with our classification. Right now the "types of weblogs" section is analogous to expanding Op-Ed to say that you can write an op-ed complaining about the school board, or about taxes, or about war, or the local sports team. Rhobite 01:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you with respect to most of the classifications. However, I think that "political blogs" definitely deserves some discussion (like what's already there) as well as personal blogs where the bloggers got in trouble with their employers due to what they wrote. I think notability should be used to determine what's written about; otherwise, make a list of archetypes as you say. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 01:58, May 16, 2005 (UTC)