Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep, but tag historical.
This project covers a type of webpage. Please see related discussions on websites at:
Wikipedia talk:Websites
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics

Contents

[edit] Canadian Blogs

I've actually reached my limit defending Canadian blogs on Wikipedia. The strange resistance to blog information, coupled with the systemic bias against non-American entries (more likely to be deleted as non-notable) lead me to conclude that adding more Canadian blog info would just invite a continual string of vfd's that I have no energy to fight.

Canadian bloggers are forking the Canadian internet information on Wikipedia to a Canadian-based wiki on this topic. This should be up and running in the next week or so. I'll post a link here when it happens.--Simon.Pole 03:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The two main Canadian blogging groups -- Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories have gone through two vfds, as has the page on the Canadian blogosphere. There is no reasons to believe vfd's on these topics will not continue indefinately in the future.--Simon.Pole 03:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In my view, this had no place on the WikiProject home.

[edit] WP:V and WP:CITE

These seem to be a big problem for blogs, even those that get kept like Blogging Tories appear to do so by dearth of numbers rather than by presenting reputable sources. How should this be addressed? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • We need to look at reputable outside sources where they exist. Obviously, a blog is evidence of its existence but we need outside sources as per WP:WEB to verify notability. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The key word is "reputable". Blogs shouldn't be allowed to bootstrap themselves into notability.
      brenneman(t)(c) 05:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is one of the systemic biases of Wikipedia. Internet-stuff is overrepresented, often at the expense of WP:V. I'm not sure much can be done about it, as long as crowds keep showing up at Afd and shouting down verifiability concerns with a chorus of "keep"s. Still, we should at least attempt to insist on verifiability; we are, after all, an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I had a quick question along these lines. I'm planning on extending the article for Michael Totten, a blogger who has embedded with the US occupation forces in Iraq and has also published content in mainstream media. There's no question about his notability, but I'm wondering as I expand the article how much detail I can go into. Most of the information about him comes from himself and other blogs, which raises questions about WP:RS. While it's permissible to use self-published information about a person as long as it's not contentious, I'm worried that too much of the article will derive from that.

There's citeable material about him, just not much. Should I go ahead and include the references to his own blog? Or wait until a mainstream journalist profiles him before I expand the article?

Wellspring 17:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I think that Alexa ranks in WP:WEB are unfair. How about getting blogs judged by Technorati rank? Like any blog in Hot 500 should be added? --ComputerJoe 13:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Blogs in the aggregate (as measured by Technorati, for example) can be good evidence of at least current notability. Individual blogs are not usually verifiable sources of specific information but the total attention paid to a subject in the total blogosphere does indicate whether the subject is currently notable. Note that traditional media already uses this criterion: many traditional news sources report on what's being discussed in blogs. If we use the technorati references to a subject as an indicator of whether a subject is of interest, we have a usable filter against vanity articles. What's interesting or noable today may not be interesting or notable tomorrow (except as history); but that's true no matter how we ascertain notability.--Tevslin 19:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing up the main Blog article

Blog, in my opinion, is a pretty weak article, and it's especially cluttered by a long, random list of blog categories that are a mix of vanity links, hobbyhorses and half-baked ideas (along with some substance, of course). I just posted a little propsal to streamline it at Talk:Blog and would like to hear comments if anyone's interested. I may boldly edit just to show where I'm going unless I hear screams. It seems like that article ought to be sort of a "flagship" of the blogging project, so if anyone's interested in helping improve it, that would be great. · rodii · 15:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This project, though, is pretty much inactive. Computerjoe's talk 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I can see that. :) Still, I thought I could spam a few watchlists this way. · rodii · 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Portal

I've just created Portal:Internet, please contribute! Computerjoe's talk 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Timecop/The war on blogs

Just though people might wish to be aware of User:Timecop/The war on blogs a campaign to remove articles on Blogs from wikipedia. --Salix alba (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project inactive? and Portal?

Should this wikiproject be classed as inactive then?

And Portal:Blog was originally created by a repeated POV offender, and is littered with Islamic references/links. It should either be adopted by a new owner and cleaned up properly, or deleted (at WP:MFD). --Quiddity 03:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I once suggested a Portal:Blog at the old portal approval page, but it got rejected. IMO the Portal should be MfDed, we have Portal:Internet.
And yes, we are inactive. Computerjoe's talk 16:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Blog. Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tumblelog

I have just seen the entry for Tumblelog; is this really substantial enough to have an entry? It seems to be a super obscure neologism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.120.131 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Save This WikiProject

Convince people to join to help put this Project back on the map! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DakotaDAllen (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whedonesque.com

I could use more sets of eyes on whedonesque.com. I would like to get it to GA status despite the anti-blog perspective some editors seem to have. Can anyone else lend a hand? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)