![]() | This page 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. |
No references, author readily admits to coming up with the term and definition himself Ms-LadyJ. -- pansy aka.jpg ( talk) 08:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I liked the structure of the article with all the subsections and lists of examples before it was removed by Tene ( talk). I thought it was useful information on a very important subject. I didn't think it was waffly or self-promoting, but I may have missed the parts that Tene was referring to. Nonetheless, if the content was waffly, self-promoting, or biased, then the content should have been edited rather than deleted IMO. Oicumayberight ( talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oicumayberight,
Thanks, I thought that it was fine also, and having deleted it altogether seems to be a pretty elitist way of taking it out of the discussion. Frankly at this point I am just as glad - it seems that Tene is just trying to score ego points and not really contributing much of positive value. The whole thing about "Americanisms" is says it all. This is pseudo-intellectualism that really doesn't have much to do with what I encounter in the publishing industry every day. I don't have time for this right now, when I get a sense that I can contribute something positive here without being slammed as an idiot I'll try again. -- Jblossom ( talk) 01:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am catching up on this article for a moment, it should probably provide a reference to my book "Content Nation," which was published last year by John Wiley & Sons. I used the definition which I dontated to Wikipedia in the book. What I find frustrating is that I was the original author of this definition on Wikipedia in 2004, and the Wikipedians have obliterated the trail to that history. Knol manages history much more cleanly. Jblossom ( talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I look another hack at it. The key concept to emphasize is that publishing is far less about the initial generation of information or experiences and far more about figuring out how to make it as repurposable as possible so that it attains the highest value possible for each and every potential audience. Companies like Elsevier, which used to focus almost exclusively on the publication of information in printed journals, now have invested heavily in technologies that will give them a very high level of repurposing of that content. Google's search engine and other search engines are basically content machines, enabling repurposing through search results, mashups, etc. So when these days we refer to the "content industry" we're talking about an industry that has gone way past the idea of storing information in retrieval devices such as books and databases to focus on what happens once you start pulling stuff out of those storage devices.
Hope that this helps. Oh, BTW, can we get rid of the "weasel words" warning? I don't see how it applies at this point. -- Jblossom ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oicumayberight, This is a very constructive hack at what we can build as a real article. I like how you re-integrated the ideas of live performance and events into the second sentence of the definition. I agree that "experiences" gets tiresome, I think that you solved that problem elegantly via that sentence.
I think that what we're zoning in on now is how the term "content" is so much more important now to people because there's so much value through transformation in the marketplace.
I will let this settle into my thoughts for a bit and then come back to it, but for now I thank you very much for your very positive contributions. Feel free to consider continuing the conversation on Contentnation.com-- Jblossom ( talk) 17:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This label was added some time ago, I don't see how it relates to the article in its current form. It appears to be quite objective at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblossom ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Any reference to a backlash against this buzzword, or has it been cemented as a real term now? 131.51.128.20 ( talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see much of any backlash against "content," if anything the media and publishing industries rely more upon this concept than ever before. I contributed this definition on Wikipedia originally in 2004 (wiped out by a disgruntled Wikipedian), have contributed to its refinement since then and include it in my book "Content Nation." Whenever I deliver a talk on the book and share this definition, the light bulb goes off in people's minds. As many of those people work for publishing firms, I assume that the definition remains quite relevant. -- Jblossom ( talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A follow-up note on "buzzword" - the word "content" referencing media and publishing is used in terms and conditions for a number of Web sites, including Twitter. If lawyers have come to rely upon this word, that's a signal to me that it's becoming a standard of reference. -- Jblossom ( talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
No references, author readily admits to coming up with the term and definition himself Ms-LadyJ. -- pansy aka.jpg ( talk) 08:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I liked the structure of the article with all the subsections and lists of examples before it was removed by Tene ( talk). I thought it was useful information on a very important subject. I didn't think it was waffly or self-promoting, but I may have missed the parts that Tene was referring to. Nonetheless, if the content was waffly, self-promoting, or biased, then the content should have been edited rather than deleted IMO. Oicumayberight ( talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oicumayberight,
Thanks, I thought that it was fine also, and having deleted it altogether seems to be a pretty elitist way of taking it out of the discussion. Frankly at this point I am just as glad - it seems that Tene is just trying to score ego points and not really contributing much of positive value. The whole thing about "Americanisms" is says it all. This is pseudo-intellectualism that really doesn't have much to do with what I encounter in the publishing industry every day. I don't have time for this right now, when I get a sense that I can contribute something positive here without being slammed as an idiot I'll try again. -- Jblossom ( talk) 01:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I am catching up on this article for a moment, it should probably provide a reference to my book "Content Nation," which was published last year by John Wiley & Sons. I used the definition which I dontated to Wikipedia in the book. What I find frustrating is that I was the original author of this definition on Wikipedia in 2004, and the Wikipedians have obliterated the trail to that history. Knol manages history much more cleanly. Jblossom ( talk) 13:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I look another hack at it. The key concept to emphasize is that publishing is far less about the initial generation of information or experiences and far more about figuring out how to make it as repurposable as possible so that it attains the highest value possible for each and every potential audience. Companies like Elsevier, which used to focus almost exclusively on the publication of information in printed journals, now have invested heavily in technologies that will give them a very high level of repurposing of that content. Google's search engine and other search engines are basically content machines, enabling repurposing through search results, mashups, etc. So when these days we refer to the "content industry" we're talking about an industry that has gone way past the idea of storing information in retrieval devices such as books and databases to focus on what happens once you start pulling stuff out of those storage devices.
Hope that this helps. Oh, BTW, can we get rid of the "weasel words" warning? I don't see how it applies at this point. -- Jblossom ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Oicumayberight, This is a very constructive hack at what we can build as a real article. I like how you re-integrated the ideas of live performance and events into the second sentence of the definition. I agree that "experiences" gets tiresome, I think that you solved that problem elegantly via that sentence.
I think that what we're zoning in on now is how the term "content" is so much more important now to people because there's so much value through transformation in the marketplace.
I will let this settle into my thoughts for a bit and then come back to it, but for now I thank you very much for your very positive contributions. Feel free to consider continuing the conversation on Contentnation.com-- Jblossom ( talk) 17:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This label was added some time ago, I don't see how it relates to the article in its current form. It appears to be quite objective at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblossom ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Any reference to a backlash against this buzzword, or has it been cemented as a real term now? 131.51.128.20 ( talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see much of any backlash against "content," if anything the media and publishing industries rely more upon this concept than ever before. I contributed this definition on Wikipedia originally in 2004 (wiped out by a disgruntled Wikipedian), have contributed to its refinement since then and include it in my book "Content Nation." Whenever I deliver a talk on the book and share this definition, the light bulb goes off in people's minds. As many of those people work for publishing firms, I assume that the definition remains quite relevant. -- Jblossom ( talk) 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A follow-up note on "buzzword" - the word "content" referencing media and publishing is used in terms and conditions for a number of Web sites, including Twitter. If lawyers have come to rely upon this word, that's a signal to me that it's becoming a standard of reference. -- Jblossom ( talk) 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)