Talk:Vlog/Archive 1

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

External articles on video blogging
I noticed Steve's article on North East Film. It is inappropriate perhaps to cite it as a source for definition (although the PC Mag article really is a HORRID, incorrect and improper article)... however it is a very good article... and what's more I think since we can't possibly define videoblogging as anything more than a technical thing... that we should AT THE VERY LEAST be given the leway to link to important educational and news articles on video blogging. There have been articles anywhere from Wired to Rolling Stone, and there is a tremendous amount of educational material on video blogging. I'm really ticked that a certain person doesn't seem to think ANYthing is worthy of wikipedia... so fuck it, we'll cite the stuff that 'isn't important enough to be on wikipedia' in the raw as links. Educational articles like Adrian Miles so called "hypertext paradigm's of cinema" to seminal articles on the debate over the definition of video blogging... to articles discussing theory. That much cannot be denied. Oh... and to the videoblogging wiki. Excellent. I will work to fill out this section over the coming weeks. If it is deleted I will keep readding it, over and over and over. Because the stagnation of the video blogging article do to ONE person is absurd. Meanwhile the "video podcasting" article on wikipedia has continued to grow and get better. When one doesn't let a SINGLE peace of copy exist on an article without having in written it their own damn selves they should ask themselves if they aren't being and overindulgent control freak. Now... I'll just start growing this video blogging in another direction instead. The theory being that it's simply pasting links may be less argumentative than actually using words.


 * Re External articles There, that should be a good start. I know it's imperfect. Maybe articles should be chronological... maybe I have to many. Maybe they shouldn't be organized as internetional and regional, but I think regional articles can be just more insightful sometimes than international. The point is these articles add a lot more depth to this article and it DEFINITELY needs it because it's not progressing and "flushing out" it's stagnating not do to a lack of information out there about vlogging but because of political issues with people on wikiepedia.

I would asked even if some of these articles are deemed "not worthy" that they would be left for just a little while the section is being "fleshed out". While that is being done to come up with some rought criteria by which these articles should be judged as worthy. Because certainly the majority of them are, because THEY HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND what videoblogging is. They show facets such as the political side, the diary side. All sorts of useful information... and in fact I hope some of them will be used in reference to the so called "genres" section and elseware, but that is a side note.

BTW, I still haven't even gotten to the educational resources. Thesis and such. But I there will only be a few of those. I don't think anyone on wikipedia would scoff at thesis and other "resources for extended learning".


 * Cleaned up the formating - Using other pages such as blogging as a template. I think having VERY specific categories under further links will help us limit it to just what matters. Including educational resources and news articles. This by it's nature implies NOT vlogs. Those adding vlog links will find themselves having to make a new category... which should indicate to most that they're adding something they shouldn't be, if they need that extra clue. :) I'm sort of pleased with myself on this one. Though, I of course think we should come up with some better criteria on what news articles are worthy and maybe it could use some further cleanup and better organization.--mmeiser 09:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading & See Also Sections

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

Definition

 * Mmeiser, the magazine reference does not say that a vlog is "similar" to a blog, it says it "is" a blog. Your personal opinion shouldn't factor into an encyclopedia's description of a term.  Instead of copying today's BLOG definition, you should just state that a vlog is a blog.  The term is very well known term and the link will allow anyone not in the know to read up about it. (as well as see the discussion and history of the actual blog article)  Also, the current quote is pretty much completely different than what is found in the referenced piece.  You shouldn't change the sourced definition and leave the original source.  Also, please include the sources you used for the analysis of the Truffaut quote.Pdelongchamp 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All I can say is if I didn't already know what a vlog was this would make NO sense to me and not clarify the issue at all. "Videoblog, a portmanteau combining video, web, and log, (usually shortened to vlog) is a blog that includes video clips.[1] Regular entries are typically presented in reverse chronological order and often combine embedded video or a video link with supporting text, images, and other metadata." That it is a portmanteau is secondary... it's relationship to a vlog is secondary... that "a vlog is a blog with video clips" helps not at all to the other 90% of the planet that doesn't understand what a blog is. The source information is only good as an indirect reference... I'd only include it because we don't have much source yet. But PCMagazine is not a great source. I think the article is simply slipping sideways. I don't even understand what you're trying to accomplish with these changes. I see no change in the meaning... it's just gotten less understandable... my only issue with the core part was just saying a "vlog is a blog" is not very helpful. Now you've mishmashed all of it together, including tha portmandeu(sp?) info, which was fine where it was.--69.209.128.182 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The question of definition
Moved the following from the Article to the Discussion page (additional comments below):
 * The exact definition of vlog is still not clear, with opinion divided between it being about the content itself, or purely the delivery mechanism. Several manifestos, most delivered as video, have tried to address the question of definition:
 * Michael Verdi's Vlog Anarchy, where he states that defining a vlog as a genre limits innovation and ignores what he feels is more important: that the genre reduces barriers to media creation. In a later video, Experiment, he says, "... things like iTunes TV show downloads and videoblogs that are created to make money rather than communicate starting to alter the course of the public conversation. I say those kinds of things are not videoblogging".
 * Adrian Miles, in his paper Media Rich versus Rich Media, states that because blogs are highly granular, a vlog or videoblog by definition must also be highly granular. Thus, linear 'closed' video works which are commonly recognised as vlog posts, by virtue of their low granularity, are simply 'video in a blog' and not technically videoblogging. In his paper, Miles offers several examples of where vlogging and interactive media may be headed in this respect.
 * A clear definition of 'vlog' is stated at the top of the article. If you disagree with the definition of vlog, then change it.  If someone wants to know about the discussion regarding an article they're reading, they'll click the Discussion page.  That's the idea behind the discussion page.Pdelongchamp 16:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That "clear definition of vlog" came from PCmagazine. Two things about that... a definition should never include the word it is seaking to define... or even a derivative of it or from which it was derived. Second, PC Magaine is an industry magazine. It isn't even a general public newspaper such as the NYTimes. It's articles are meant to explain things to ITS specific readers or niche market. Case in point... Business week basically said, "this is like a blog only with video" to paraphrase. This is not a definition. A definition should first define... i.e.  "it's a web based journal which uses video entries... and so on",   and then you can give all the due credit and comparison to the term blog you want. By using the term blog as the defining element you risk confusing people who don't know what a blog is. It was however only included in websters dictionary a year or two ago. It's life is relatively short lived and there's still a majority of people on this planet who still thinks it means to throw up. ;) LOL.   BTW, I've kept a reference to the PCMagazine article if only because we're slim on references... it's still the worst damn writing I've ever seen on the subject... but we'll leave as a point of reference. BTW, Pdelongchamp, I know you've done a lot for this article, but please... in the spirit of collaboration... try to withhold for a week... or two... before removing others edits. Give others a chance to judge each others edits instead of always being the first and hence last to judge. Part of the reason this article is stagnating is becuase you've left now "wiggle room" for collaboration. Thank you. --mmeiser 09:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Section added and then removed: Underpinnings
I mmeiser added a major new section trying to dive into the heart of the primary issues that define and differentiate video blogging from mainstream media. I tried really hard to define vlogging in a very encyclopedic and non-controversial way. It's very dry, and a hare long... but I think based on initial feedback I may have actually pulled it off. Please go over it and make adjustements as you may... above all please leave comments here. Could use all the feedback on this edit you can offer. I'm expecting a firestorm of deletes, edits, and neg feedback. So far I've recieve positive comment from Michael Verdi and Steve Garfield independantly of one another. That's two down... about 10,000 more peers left to get approval from. :) --mmeiser 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This goes against the NOR policy as it is currently presented. Just add the sources from which you pulled your statements and it'll be gold.Pdelongchamp 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pdelongchamp I can use all the advice I can get. I'll do a rewrite and after I post it I'll shoot you an email. Theres important information there, mostly it's just off the top of my head, but just because I can write it off the top of my head doesn't mean that there hasn't been plenty of concrete theory laid out on the subject. I'll slim it down, keep it simple and close to the ground and come up with some sources on where the theory comes from. Obviously Truffeut's quote is not enough. It's only the start. --69.209.128.230 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) This was me, I just wasn't logged in. --mmeiser 05:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

New section: historical context
After some careful consideration I re-added the François Truffaut quote regarding "the film of tomorrow". I stopped short of calling the section title "the film of tomorrow" instead calling it the much more poignant "historical context". The quote was originally removed by an annonymous coward (someone not logged in and with no username) on July 26 whom only stated "Quoting Truffaut in an article about video blogging? What the fuck is wrong with you guys??". I think in fact that understanding this essential relationship between traditional film as a high art, and the everyday film that is video blogging is essential to understanding what video blogging is about... and I and know many, MANY vloggers would aggree. Maybe this annonymous editor had a point, maybe not, but their case was not well stated. In addition I have left out the section Pdelongchamp cited as "original research" and I think this is a good compromise. What is left is certainly not original research, and it makes an essential and short point about what video blogging is and what it is not. I may go back through the section Pdelongchamp deleted and see if there's something there worth salvaging if I recieve some enchoragment but this should be good for now. Oh... and historical context is a MUCH better term than "underpinnings" for the section. It's the word I was originally looking for, but just couldn't put my finger on.

P.S. Please let me know if you appreciate what I'm trying to do here. There is MUCH, MUCH to be said on this subject and I, like many, would like to help define it. I feel this article has been so hotly contested in the past because of petty and non-productive disagreements and a lack of collaboration by those in the disagreements. I've seen several good additions by others removed when they should have been collaboratively revised, not simply dismissed. We should dare to encourage one another, to be critical but collaborative, to reserve from slashing whole sections... and to attempt instead to rewrite, rework and discuss what is and is not working.

In short, I as well as other contributors could use all the feedback and especially encouragement we can get so that we can evolve around the simplistic "genres" definition... which is quite frankly a very poor way of defining. We can define this in a far richer and more well rounded way. Video blogging is NOT simply entertainment, nor is it simply art, nor is it a bunch of "genres". Videoblogging is about the transcendence of the moving image from a tool of the few, to a tool of the many... from use from everything from everyday practical communication, to high art and film, to entertainment and absolutely everything inbetween. Maybe I just need to state that in the article? :) LOL. Peace and thank you. --mmeiser 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed Historical Context. There was no sign of notable sources relating to the article's topic.  The only source provided was from an article that doesn't even mention videoblogging.  This leads me to the only possible conclusion that this is original research.Pdelongchamp 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


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

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

The question of definition
Since this page was started (by me in fact) back in early 2005, there has been this constant need by certain people, especially aggregators and other commercially driven people, to define vlog as the delivery mechanism, ignoring the content and genre completely. Anyone who monitors the videoblogging yahoo group, or the vlogtheory group, or actually talks to videobloggers, will realise that the jury is still out on exactly what the definition is.

This page MUST explain that the definition is not yet agreed, and must not take a specific stance on the issue. It is up to the videoblogging community, industry and society to ultimately define what vlogging is, and only then can this page take that as the definition. Richard BF

Yet again, someone removed this question of definition section (and they didn't even bother signing in to do it). Anyone active in the vlogging community would know that the definition is still up in the air. The actual definition at the top of this article is even a watered down vague statement of what videoblogging is which should be restored to its original version as well. One should be asking whether all these changes are by people actually active in the space, or watching on from a distance. Richard BF

Nice edit today (the one that includes michael verdi and steve garfield) I think it's important to recognize and include the primary debates. I sort of don't believe in this "genre" talk... but maybe that's my personal take. I believe genre's is a misnomer in the communicative pardigm... these are not shows, it's not broadcast, it's not about episodes... I mean it can be on one end of the spectrum... but on the important and innovative end of the spectrum it is about this transition from episodic media to communicative media. At some point I hope we can shed the "genre talk" but I do recognize that it's much easier to illustrate genres then to explain what "episodic to communicative" means. BTW, Be sure add the RSS feed for not only the vlog page, but also this talk page to your RSS reader. It's wicked awesome. Very effective I think not only for tracking who's making edits but also for following the conversation. I can tell I'm hooked already. --mmeiser 23:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Video hosting sites
I just removed the video hosting section. There were about 30 sites listed. This information is for freevlog and other sites to provide. This is an encyclopedia and is for the definition of Vlog, not to help new videobloggers. The tools section is starting to grow now as well, so I might attack that in a few weeks. Richard BF

Removing vodcast
Also, some Dutch guy has created a vodcast entry, and put various links to it in the Vlog entry. This is the problem with podcasting people being ignorant of an already existing vlogging community, before defining a new and incorrect term. Its even more annoying that the history section in vodcast notes all these Dutch historical events that we've already been doing in the Vlogging community since well before then. We have enough trouble fighting off the heaily branded and inaccurate term "podcast", let alone dealing with "vodcast". Richard BF


 * For what it's worth, I've heard the term vodcast used for as long as I've heard vlog used (since Feb. 2005). I think it's a valid term, better than vlog actually.  Oed 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

examples came up again
A couple showed up in the "tools" section that were definitely not tools. Adam Quirk - Bullemhead

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

Comments pertaining to the merge was moved to the merge discussion page at Talk:Vodcast. If interested in the topic, please do visit Talk:Vodcast. —Tokek 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Haakon, I agree, although discretion should be used to ensure that historically relevant links are not removed. This would include original sources of terms, highly relevant contributions, etc. By way of example, last year I added the term Realcasting to the Wikipedia. Now there is a computer geek in Norway, with seemingly no experience in new media, lobbying to have the term deleted. The Wikicommunity must be cauthious to err away from self-censorship. Moreover, these concerns over link-apamming are largely unfounded. E.g., to date the main page for Vodcast has a Google PR of 0/10. Therefore, there is little to no value for spamming these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtaus (talk • contribs)

This is not the place to contend my nomination for the deletion of Realcasting. If the term is not notable, regardless of how notable it may become in the future (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Making this assertion does not require any "experience in new media" (though I am an avid podcast listener). Haakon 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The external links was recently cleaned up leaving only three key sites, but the changes were ignored (page reverted to a previous version). This was a very bad revision. --212.10.150.118 13:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 212.10.150.118. The link cleanup is essential. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory of all things related to vlogging. Only essential core defining sites should be here. I've reverted Pilotguy's revert to reflect this. --70.137.175.224 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I put back mefeedia and vlogdir here because, like vlogmap, they provide important info about the community and access to vlogs/feeds and i dont understand how this damages the vlog entry.

vlog and vodcast differences!
There is a difference between a vodcast and a vlog. Therefore both Wikipedia entries should not be merged.

A Vlog is a personal bulleting like a blog, but then with video. Mostly a html site, sometimes with rss.

A vodcast is a TV-channel with on-demand video titles, built by pro-users or broadcasters, mostly an rss but not a website.

I agree with the above explanation of the difference between Vlog and Vodcast. What I do not agree with is the term "Vodcast", I favor the term "Vidcast" for the amalgamate of the terms "Video" and "Broadcasting".

--Vinko 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Vidblog = Vblog
i also suggest adding the entry Vidblog or merging with vblog, as it is a common synomym.

Merge Vlog and Vodcast with Internet television?
How about merging Vlog and Vodcast with Internet television. (Both are really just alternate names for Internet TV.) --Charles Iliya Krempeaux 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. A Vlog or Vidblog is more like an online video version of someone's life, akin to a blog. Internet television seems to denote more of a 'show' based concept, which is does not mesh. &mdash; Justin Johnson 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Justin that Vlog or Vodcast should not be merged with Internet television or IPTV. &mdash; Vinko 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally think they all could be merged. Just like blogs aren't always personal journals, vlogs aren't always personal. I mean, Rocketboom calls itself a vlog, even though it is pretty much a TV show. Jeshii 04:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly some sort of merger needed. Some people seem to be under the impression that videoblogging is for personal videos only, but there are a lot of show-type videoblogs that aren't personal. Are these not videoblogs? If we take the cue from blogs, they are. Even professional and thematic blogs are still blogs. I think videoblog should be the generic term used to encompass the "blog-like" features of the medium. That is, a videoblog is a "a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order and each item posted is linked primarily to video content." All the other terms, like vidcast, vodcast, vlog, vblog, etc. can reference videoblog as a presentation method or format, or just redirect to videoblog. Oed 05:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Vlogging is NOT Internet television. Television connotates a very specific experience: Sitting back and watching a show that is one-way (broadcast), fits a specific time block, requires a TV studio or access to one, and is delivered on a passive viewing device. A videolog or vlog is generally interactive (the ability to comment), does not conform to a pre-determined blocks of time and can be produced by anyone with a computer. Just like blogs are not 'Internet books', vlogs are not 'Internet television'. Ekai 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge Internet television, since it's a different, older technology, but merge (again) Vlog and Vodcast. Vlog and vodcast are the same thing, and they were already merged -- vodcast was made into a redirect, however a Dutch IP address reverted the vodcast redirect. I've previously suggested at Talk:Vodcast that: "video podcast, videopodcast, vidcast, vodcast, vcast, video blog, videoblog, vlog, video podcasting, videopodcasting, vidcasting, vodcasting, vcasting, video blogging, videoblogging, vlogging" should all point to the same article, but the discussion got bogged down by naysayers on that page, who were all anonymous IP addresses. Apparently someone wants to advocate the vodcast term and wants to use that page as some kind of advertisement for vodcast.nl. However, upon inspecting the definitions offered at the Vlog and Vodcast articles before they were merged, they had the same essential definitions: Some people raised the fact that there are some corporate trademarks, and for those trademarks I have created disambiguation pages (Vodcast (disambiguation) and Vcast) (both disambiguation pages were vandalised once by Dutch IP addresses. Whoever it is apparently even has issues with disambiguation pages).—Tokek 14:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is video the primary content? Yes.
 * Do they have a webfeed (RSS or Atom), and are they served over the internet? Yes.
 * Are video podcasts (that work with iTunes, for example) considered a vlog/vodcast? Yes.

Don't merge I guess this is a resolved issue in that the two weren't merged. Video blogging is as others here point out NOT IPTV... Videoblogging and IPTV are completely different, and the distinctions are EXTREMELY important. I hope the issue has been clarified properly now in this video blogging article. In my opinion we shouldn't need to even state "videoblogging is NOT IPTV" hopefully by now it is apparent enough in reading the article. Peace and thanks everyone who's worked on this page thus far... lots and lots of hard work. It's starting to get there. That is if I didn't just screw it up with my "underpinnings" addition. Looking forward to feedback on that btw. --mmeiser 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A Video Podcast is not a Video Blog
If a video podcast is a video blog a podcast should be a blog. --213.84.246.198 11:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Astounding logic!
 * —Tokek 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Year of the Video Blog
Adding this back in.

"Another person obsessively monitoring his own biography is Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who has edited it frequently"

SOURCE: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-looks-out-number-1

The entry I reinstated about myself was one that I did not originally write. The note on the deleteion says, "17:20, 30 August 2006 Pdelongchamp (Talk | contribs) (→History - removed steve garfield link spam. the "year of the blog" statement would need to be recognized by a -notable- source and not just by the author)"

This video blog post is an important point in video blogging history.

SOURCE: BOSTON PHOENIX http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/05145823.asp


 * Hey Steve, I agree. When it was originally removed, i asked for a notable source and none was provided upon its reinstatement.  I figured it was link spam but I'm glad you were able to prove me wrong.Pdelongchamp 17:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Video Clip
The source of 'video clip' doesn't even mention length of the video, so how can that be a source?
 * if you're refering to my comment, i meant the PC Magazine source. The video clip article does mention that video clips are generally shorter than a standard television show.  I don't think it would be appropriate to define the exact lenght of a video clip in order to deem it so.Pdelongchamp 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve here again. This is just plain wrong. The PC Magazine definition of video blog is wrong too. Video Clips are posted to sites like YouTube of moments. Crazy moments captured and uploaded for sharing, like lip syncing. A video clip by definition means it's just a small part of something. Video in a video blog is not just a video clip, although it can be. Video in a video blog can be a professionally edited story. Not a clip. It can be a completed music video, not a clip. It can be a show. It can be a story. It can be a movie. It can be a news story. Video on a video blog is much more than just a clip. See my list of vlogs that contain more than just video clips: squidoo.com/videoblogs/#module1270740

Please change this to video. Remove the word clips.
 * Everything I've looked up about video clip just says that it's a short video. It never says anything about it being a section of a longer video.  Just read the wikipedia article for video clip.  I also want to point out that this is an encyclopedia article.  We can't just change things because we disagree.  We have to prove that we're right with notable sources.  If you think that the PC Magazine definition is wrong than the only thing i can suggest is that you nominate this article for deletion.  Frankly, I still think it's a neologism and supported the orginal nomination.  There aren't enough notable sources writing about "video blog" to support an article about it.Pdelongchamp 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I looked up the listing on Wikipedia about Video Clip and it says, "Video clips are short clips" If you click on CLIPS it takes you over to this definition, "A media clip is a short segment of media either an audio clip or a video clip. Media clips may be promotional in nature, as with movie clips. For instance, to promote their newly-released movies, many actors are accompanied by movie clips on their circuits. Additionally, media clips may be the raw materials of other productions, such as audio clips used for sound effects."

SHORT. So let's agree to remove the word clips. Video blogs can be made up of LONG clips, and many clips edited together. It just makes sense that the word clip should be removed from this posting. Here's a source article that says nothing about length, which should validate my claim. http://www.nefilm.com/news/archives/2006/02/podcasting.htm
 * That's a great article. As long as you're sourcing something notable, make whatever changes you want. I agree that the PC Magazine definition is pretty bad. (but it's all I could find) If you want to remove it, go ahead and do that too. Just make sure everything is sourced.Pdelongchamp 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So after this whole discussion, someone else comes in an put clips back with no source for the reinstatement. The definition cited for 'video clips' does not contain any definition of length, so I deleted 'clips' once again. Stevegarfield 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition
The new source for definition is wrong. O'Reilly is actually defining Video Podcasting.


 * 1) ^ Definition O'Reilly, What Is Vlogging (and How to Get Started)

That definition says that vlogging is podcasting with a feed. It's not. That's optional. It even contradicts the wikipedia entry. Stevegarfield 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Steve that was me. And it was a mistake. I only added it because I thought someone was going to site that stupid arse PCmag definition again. Your article is fine. BTW, while I get your point about vlog/video podcast I (like 99.999% of the planet and 90% of video bloggers) don't care about the distinction between video podcasting and video blogging to me it's inconsequential... case in point the video podcasting page is a pretty much a duplicate of the vlog page. If you think there's some difference you're welcome to it... I won't interfere unless it starts interfering with the citing of good sources and holding back the article... Case in point regardless of what you think that orielly article "defined" it was good meat, good source, O'rielly, and a good overview article. It leant meaning and validity to the article. It was called "what is vlogging" and it seemed to mention "blog" just about as much as it mentioned "podcast".


 * I won't get sucked into that trap, and it IS a trap. It's nothing personal of course I'm just sick of hearing about it when 99.99% of the planet doesn't even know what a vlog is let alone what the difference is between a vlog and a video podcast. It's incosequential. As you know it's been debated endlessly on the yahoo group as well as elsewhere. As well as vodcast, vog, vidcast, you name it. I don't care what people want to call it... or what distinctions they want to make. it's like fighting over bread crumbs on the floor... when you have a seat at the table Instead I propose if you want to make a distinction make it on the video podcast page. Quite frankly I think that page should just redirect to the video blog page.


 * Speaking of which I readded the o'rielly source... There's no reason we can't have both. But if you really have a problem with it, then go a head and remove it... just make sure it's included in the external links section as "further reading".

Peace and thanks for strugling on this article with us. I think we're slowly getting somewhere. --mmeiser 10:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To put it simply: A vlog is a blog with video and a video podcast is the vlog's RSS feed. It's not like 'Podcasting' is a vague mysterious term.  It's always been syndicated media over RSS or Atom.  The person who wrote this article obviously doesn't understand what the term means.  Both quotes contradict each other and only one relates to the text actually in the article.  I have to remove the O'Reilly quote.Pdelongchamp 15:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A note for incoming maintainers
I can't believe this. Almost I year since I stopped maintaining this article, and you guys still can't agree on what vlog means. At this stage, I should point you to a note I made above, and have made several times over the past few years: that we still don't agree on what a videoblog is. If we did, then obviously this Wikipedia article would be the definition of it. So let's not get into the whole 99.9% of people know what it is argument.

My preference would be to delete this article altogether, and make reference to vlog in the blog page. Something along the lines of: vlog is a term used by some to describe a blog which contains video. With the vast amount of video, audio and static images now included with blogs, it would seem as though the term is probably redundant. After all, there is no term for a blog which contains audio (alog?) or images (ilog?).

My personal opinion is that vlog is a genre, and that this article should be a description of what some currently refer to as "personal videoblogging". However I'd have a hard time pushing this view with many mainstays of the vlogging community, so I'd just prefer the deletion and footnote option, as described in the above paragraph, instead.

I'll also point you to the following blog post, which outlines the reasoning behind my opinion. The definition of videoblogging as a genre -- Richard BF 23:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I supported exactly what you wrote about deleting and adding it to the blog article when vlog was up for deletion. Not enough people aggreed so they left it as it was.  I want to add though Kashum that you never and still don't quite understand what Wikipedia is about.  It's not about us aggreeing on something.  It's about having notable sources and quoting them.  So many times you argued my definition and yet you were never able to supply a notable source that supported your definition or description.  That's all it needs.  I was never arguing with your opinion, i was only arguing your lack of notable sources.  I've stopped caring about the article because since Youtube addopted the word "videoblog" it's no longer about blogs since Youtube isn't considered a blog.  Therefor, as long as notable sources start agreeing, I beleive that vloggin *will* in fact be a theme like you say.  But like I said, it's not about what i think or what you think, it's about what is verifiable and reported on by *notable sources*.  It's an encylopedia, not rocketscience.Pdelongchamp 21:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Vlog → Video blog — Video blog is more often found in notable sources. For example, it's found 8 times more often in Google News articles. Pdelongchamp 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support, I've actually never heard them referred to as vlogs other than in very informal situations. "Video blog" is common enough to warrant a move, I think. Voretus 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. Video blog fits both bills much better then vlog could

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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