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.

Hello Everybody

I published today on our Websites Blog an Article that attempts to explain Blogs, RSS, XML, ATOM to normal people that are not very tech-savvy. It tries to point out the difference to older but similar technologies and what the benefits for the average internet users are if he starts using those new technologies without fearing it. The Article became pretty long and comprehensive that I though that it would be a valuable addition to the "Blog" and "RSS" Post here at Wikipedia.

I added the Link to the External Link Section in the Blog Article and "History and Context" Block in the RSS Article. Shortly after I added it was it removed by User:rodii and User:Monkeyman. Reason: SPAM

I assumed that they did not check the Article at all and just focused on the Domain (which is a Commercial Website), but they assured me that they also think that the Article is not worth to refer people to which try to find out about Blogs and RSS. rodii recommended to post the Link to the Article here and have other you, the community take a look at it and provide comments.

Do you think it's a good article and should be added? Do you think it's not? Why? What exactly do you not like? Something in the Article is Wrong? Incomplete? too Detailed? too Confusion?

Your Feedback is appreciated.

Here is the Article.

Blog, Atom, RSS, XML and Syndication/Aggregation ! ?

Blogs, Blogging, XML, ATOM, RSS explained in simple Words. Written for the regular people using the Internet and not for tech-savvy Geeks.

Article by Carsten Cumbrowski

http://www.consumermatch.com/blog/2006/02/blog-atom-rss-xml-and.html

-- Roy-SAC 02:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I asked Carsten to post this here--constructive comments and thoughts about its suitability as an external link would be great, thanks. rodii 02:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wish Carsten had edited and improved our articles on blogging and syndication instead of writing external content and adding it as a link. I don't think we should reward people for posting content on their personal, ad-supported sites instead of posting it to Wikipedia. With that said, I don't see much content in the ConsumerMatch blog which isn't already covered in Wikipedia's articles on blogs, XML, Atom, and RSS. It is clear that Carsten used Wikipedia as a main reference. I do not believe this external link adds value to Wikipedia. Rhobite 04:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I used Wikipedia for the Historic Facts which are used in the Article as supplemental information, but not as basis and core of it. I wrote most of it before I checked Wikipedia and other sources to enrich the article. I hope it was clear, that the goal of the article is different than the related Articles at Wikipedia which focus on historic facts primarely and not on the effects of the new Technologies and how to use/take advantage of them in everyday life. I just want to make sure that nobody thinks I knocked off a few Wikipedia Articles to piece together a new one. Regarding penalizing Articles posted outside of Wikipedia instead of adding it to it is standing on some shaky ground. Wikipedia would have to become the complete source of all Information in existance or will always be incomplete. It is a nice thought though, but its not going to happen. Why? Let me take my article as example. My Article is protected by Copyright. Somebody who wants to re-publish it has to ask me for permission first, I may allow it for free or maybe charge a fee for it (demanding royalties). That is not and can never be the case when I post at Wikipedia. It becomes automaically public domain. This fact alone makes it impossible to have all Information directly available here. The aquisition of News and Information cost money in most cases. Just the fact that people who do nothing else than writing articles have to get paid for their work, because also they need to pay their bills somehow, right? Thanks for the comment though and actually reading it. Carsten. -- Roy-SAC 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (got logged off)

Nobody is forcing you to contribute to Wikipedia or support the cause of free content, but please don't expect to write external content and add it to Wikipedia as a link. Wikipedia has almost a million articles, which shows that many people do not mind contributing to free content projects. Your criticisms are similar to the ways that Microsoft and other commercial software vendors criticized open source software.. they said that no good developer would ever work for free. But the success of projects like Firefox and Apache -- and Wikipedia -- shows that the open source model has merit. I hope you'll consider sticking around and improving Wikipedia. Rhobite 07:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sticking around, don't worry. You got me wrong here anyway. I am completely for Open Source and Free Availability of Information and do not think like some others that this is related to kommunism (just thinking about Richard Stallman's comments in Revolution OS hehe). But I also believe that the world will not change , people will not change. My Argument was meant to show you how businesses and most other people will argue when they hear statements like people should be penalized for posting where they want and not at Wikipedia.

I forgive you for comparing me with Microsoft and the alikes because you don't know me. We might would b**ch and complain about Microsoft together while having a beer if we meet in real live. I was active for years in the BBS Scene (running a BBS) and Text Art Scene. I spent hours every day to keep the BBS running and created Art Work for others, for Free. The BBS actually cost me 40-60% of my monthly income to operate and maintain, but kept its use for Free. Some Users and Friend helped from time to time with a private donation (Money, Hardware, Time). I wrote tools for the System and included the source code in the release. The Tool were for free and I did not copyright protect my code that other Sysops could use it and modify it to fit their needs if they wanted to. Sounds like open source to me, but I didn't know much about the open source movement at that time. It just seemed the right thing to do.

I hope this will help you to get the right picture of me. You will believe what I am saying If you look around on the Internet a bit to find out a bit more about me.

Well, I will find out soon if my Partner finally gets it and understands what the difference is between a blog and our Website New Page and also gets around to install NewsGator for Outlook and subscribes for the RSS Feeds of all the SItes he visits today directly all the time. That was the goal, I was preparing the article for him and it almost ended up as a private email just to him which would have been quickly forgotton. When I realized that he is very likely not the only person looking at the new RSS/XML icons all over our site and trying to make sense out of it was the idea born to make it a public post in our new Blog (which is actually ironic). When I was finished did I feel the satisfaction and was surprised that it got much more than I originally intended. It was THEN when I realized by looking at the Articles here at Wikipedia that it would be a good addition to them.

Shortly after , was It deleted with references to some SEO Scam and dubious Person I don't even know. That is how the whole thing started. I was right, the Editors who removed the links got a) the purpose of our site completely wrong b) connected it with something it has nothing to do with c) forgot at the end to even read the article that was linked to, to determine if it would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia or not. I then got stamped as commercial and profit hungry trying to make a quick buck and was thinking to myself: If they think that about me and our site, then they must think that Google is the incarnation of the devil. They Generate hundreds of Millions of Dollors from Advertising on their Site which allows then to make the use of their service free for the general public. Well, we do the same and I wish I would have a few billion dollars on my savings account as a result of it. It makes it easier to follow a dream, if you don't have to worry about annoying issues like how to pay the bills and for the food on the table.

Well, now we managed completely to get off topic that I think nobody will care about the content of the actual article anymore, but about the discussion here (which is now almost as long as the article). Do what you want with the Link. I appreciate any comment and suggestion related to the content of the article. Getting in touch with me is easy. Either shot me an email or post in my Personal discussion board. Btw. Happy Presidents Day (excluding the current). Carsten -- Roy-SAC 08:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember, Wikipedia is not a blog host. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 09:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could benefit from a short list of 5-10 well known blogs, or else a link to source that would provide such a list. Does anyone have any ideas about a good source for this type of information? Thanks. Johntex\ ^talk 19:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The only such list I'm aware of is The Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem, which measures incoming links. A number of blogs/bloggers have Wikipedia articles, I'd suggest linking to those (where they haven't already been linked in the rest of the article.) -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 09:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to be careful that we don't head for the spam event horizon here. A single link to a blog directory would be good, but deciding whihc are the best-known blogs is likely to be subjective and lead to endless arguments with people trying to boost their pagerank. Just zis Guy you know? 11:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, keep the hyperlinks to the blogs themselves off this page - if the blogs are notable enough, they'll have their own articles to link to. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 09:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reading the section "Blogging Appears" it seemed as though the sentences about Justin Hall and Xanga were somehow related. I checked his article and straightened things out, then edited the article to make it clear that there's no connection. However, I'm wondering whether that reference to Xanga's expansion should be reworded or moved (possible to a section on mass-market blogging), since it covers such a wide time frame, far beyond the years of blogs' first appearance. Thoughts? -- Cantara 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have just added TheWeblogProject to the external links section. TheWeblogProject is a free, non-commercial open-source video documentary of what blogs are. Popular bloggers (Robert Scoble, Chris Pirillo, Dave Sifry, etc.) and blog readers report their uncensored opionions on what blogs are, what are their key advantages and whether they are competitive with mainstream media.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.19.119 ( talk •  contribs) 05:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blogosphere should be a subsection of Blog. It is not large enough to be an article itself in my opinion and on top of this, the article goes on to explain what a blog is in the first place... "Weblogs tend to be about a variety of subjects. The form weblogs can take ranges from a simple list of personal links to diary-style. From the beginning, many weblogs have dealt with current events and politics." Thepcnerd 04:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Added more blog articles to the list, not including exact reasons for each one as they are obvious. Thepcnerd 04:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• no, they should not be subsections. first the blog article would be huge and mostly only related by the word blog, second blogosphere describes a system of blogs, and we don't want to confuse levels of analysis or definition. keep things simple and clear. -- Buridan 04:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Buridan. We split all that stuff off the main article because Blog was too long and unorganized. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 07:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I am also in favour of keeping things split out. It's a bit like the difference between TV and newspapers. Both media, but different sections.

I have a video mobile blog (ie video shot on mobile, uploaded over the air for editing, with playback on mobile or web), and I'm wondering whether mobile video blogs should have their own section too. You can peruse some of my videos on my Biog page. Stephen B Streater 10:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• I aggree in keeping these as separate articles. A template could be used to join together a series of articles. ChaTo 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think blogroll should be merged into this article. Its barely a paragraph, and does not merit its own article. -- Hetar 08:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that splog could be addressed in the blog entry. Blogroll on the otherhand seems to me to be a distinct and separate thing. I think the length of the article should not be the determining factor in deciding what deserves to have its own entry. Just my 2 cents. - unregistered user (is this allowed?). 9 March 2006

• keep splog seperate for easier reference from other articles and from outside WP. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree that splog shpuld be a seperate article but should be linked to all froms of Blog etc., because it deals with other issues such as self-advertising, marketing and spamming for one's own benefit. It also relates to search engine spamming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JosephDamiano (please excuse my non Wiki protocol for signing this- I am depressed, tired, and disabled. Thanks to anyone (In Advance)for fixing this and sending me the correct format. JLD

"blogging has quickly emerged as a popular and important means of communication, affecting public opinion and mass media around the world."

Just because a few techno freaks, or some people turning a profit out of the tec industry, have a tendency to call whatever passing fad arises the it thing, doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should have it's ojective stance compromised. I am therefore removing this, one of the opening sentences, because it's downright erroneous. "Blogging" is another form of keeping a diary, or writing articles over the internet, or even just another term, and in no way has it even commenced affecting "public opinion" or the mass media in the western world, let alone in the world at large where the internet is not even a known word in wholed continents such as africa or where it's use is a rarity such as in the middle east. Just because a few self important webaholics in the most modernized and technologically advanced countries think that people around the world actually care for their ramblings it doesn't mean they do. So, neither popular, and popular in terms of what, if you mean readership then of the what 5% around the world that actually use the internet, nor important. Media hype and frenzy should have no place in an encyclopedia. I am removing it, i expect a rational answer if someone decides to reinstate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.22.112 ( talk •  contribs) 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly verifiable that major news networks have started using well-known blogs as sources. Some have features that talk about what's going on in the "blogosphere". The comment needs refining, but I don't think it was too far off. -- Cantara 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cantara - political blogs do affect political discourse in the US at least, and besides being occasionally cited as sources for stories they have also been involved in keeping stories alive and forcing the media to take notice. The comment needs some editing, but the premise is correct -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 06:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree. The premise that you say is correct is the very premise that I am arguing is incorrect, blogging is neither particularly popular nor particularly important. "The around the world" clause is clearly wrong as both of you have admitted, based on worldwide internet use if nothing else. The fact that some major news networks have "started using" only "well known blogs as sources or as the other user said "occassionally" cited as sources for stories does not qualify for the term popular, more popular still on the internet are traditional news media, such as news papers or tv stations with a web presence (alexa this and you ll figure it out), original internet media outlets, chatrooms, forums (very important), mail lists and marginally blogs too, so blogs are only a part of a very large set of options of discourse, not particularly popular over the rest, and certainly not popular in terms of discourse outside the internet. This for me is clearly an overeaction by tech oriented people frequenting this site which generally have the notion that the world revolves around the internet, and not the righ way which is the other way round. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.35.193 ( talk •  contribs) 08:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am removing it again, as the reference stated, as if some guys 9 page paper at mit should be stronger evidence than common sense..., is both wrong and misleading. First of all it's a sociological analysis with little data on the prevalence of blogging. The only limited sample that this guy tests (obviously NOT statisticall important) are about 4,000 articles from newspapers and magazines which site 500 blogs. That like I said is a very small sample number, with very limited sources, but even in itself it implies a 1/8 refernce to blogs only in newspaper and magazine articles, none from television, and only some u.s. sample. Disregarding the lack of scientific validity like i said this still is 1 of 8 of 1 out of something of the news medias of 1 out of something of the countries of the globe. This is not popular, this is negligeable. I won't have this encyclopedia be the victim of a media frenzy or anyone here to advance their tech agenda. The article is enough pro blogging in its main body, there's really no need for misleading vast exaggerations in the opening paragraph.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.35.193 ( talk •  contribs) 08:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to deny that blogging is popular, at least. There was just a cover story on blogging in New York magazine! I replaced the sentence, without the word "important". Rhobite 14:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of doing studies is to uncover truths that go against 'common sense.' I find an MIT paper more persuading than some anonymous wikipedian. It seems to me that you have an axe to grind. What exactly is it? -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 14:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by the "common sense" argument, but I agree that it would be good to have evidence for or against the "impactfulness" of blogging. So what kind of evidence would satisfy you, o skeptical anon? How does one evaluate the importance of a medium? ·  rodii · 17:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all implying that I have a hidden agenda with blogging is an argumentum ad hominem which I am sure isn't compatible with wikipedias policies of argumentation in the talk page. Secondly, preserving and insisting on my anonymity is again one of the cornerstones of this project and I can't see why I should get another ad hominem for that too. I have contributed to discussions and articles in many sections without ever feeling the need to establish a nickname and presence here and I have every right to do so. Instead of anyone actually answering any of the points I am making I am getting this. One person said "The whole point of doing studies is to uncover truths that go against 'common sense.". That is wrong, studies are either for validating, falsifying or expanding on common sense. But I again can't see how a "paper", from some mit alumny which is not peer reviewed as far as I can tell, and more importantly is not even relevant to blogging's prevalence because it doesn't have any scientifically, statistically, valid research can be used as a source here. And arguments such as "There was just a cover story on blogging in New York magazine!" won't cut it I am sorry to say, and not only that, but they actually strengthen my argument that this form of communication is only a marginal, western, big city hype phenomenon. Unless people start responding to my rational arguments with counterarguments instead of ad hominems and irrelevant faux "papers" I will keep removing this sentence. I don't have an axe to grind with blogs but I like this collaborative effort too much to see it fall prey to the sort of media hype and hysteria which goes against its very raison d' etre.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.29.155 ( talk •  contribs) 07:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that wikipedia works under the principle of consensus. Unilaterally going against said consensus is frowned upon. Also, please note that since you're posting with an IP address, you're not really that anonymous. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 15:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tbis is turning to a very rambling, very incoherent and very irrelevant adage from those who disagree with my thesis here, very much akin to blog actually, and very ironically. The issue here is not my anonimity, and I am well aware that my service provider is open to the public, but unless one uses a court mandate or malicious means one cannot find anymore details about my person from that, but, so as to not get caught up in the irrelevancy myself as well here, I do not care. I was responding to an adhominem and reclaiming wikipedia's rights to post without chosing a nickname. I am well aware of wikipedias concensus policy but you should also be well aware that unless one decides to offer a rational reply to my arguments I am not considering a few techies crusade to have an encyclopedia succumb to the media frenzy and claim that their favourite pastime the blog is an important, influential media around the globe instead of the very marginal position it holds, is actually any consensus at all. And I will furthermore not reply to any of the blogging mentality trying to ramble on irrelevant things, or make ad hominem attacks against me, and will solely respond to anyone who adresses the issue. As it stands right now, and it's going to change in a few seconds, we still have an unscientific non peer revied irrelevant article (for the purpose it is supposed to serve here) supporting a view that empirical research and rational thinking finds it to be completely erroneous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.134.69.93 ( talk •  contribs) .

You can look at this argument from two angles. Suppose that blogging is truly not popular. Clearly, then, a minority of the population is using blogs and the blogs that exist are not influential. Therefore, media outlets would not compel their reporters to create blogs, nor cite blogs in their articles. Additionally, blogging would be confined to certain types of people in certain areas of the world. But here we have contradictions with reality, and therefore blogging must be popular. I have cited a source for blogging popularity in the main article. I cited this rather than the peer-reviewed version of the paper because it is must shorter (see C. Marlow's web page). Please read the source and then post your reply on this page. Also, remember that "rational thinking" does not apply to facts. If the facts don't line up with "rational thinking," then in fact the logic must be wrong. Bwabes 07:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You say you're making rational arguments but all I see is your personal belief that blogging isn't popular. That won't cut it either. Rhobite 22:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhodite, go over my arguments, I won't do it for your, nor ramble blogwise about it as you would have me. Bwabes, the rational thinking should be based on facts of course, but like I ve mentioned a thousand times and no one bothers to respond to the article you are posting does not contain a proper survey with any statistical significance but merely a sample for arguments sake, the argument being irrelevant to our issue here, so I can't see how you keep reposting it and claiming it is of any value. Secondly, you are using a reductio ad absurdum here, which as a logical structure is valid, but is wrongly implemented here. Blogs mgith be used by media outlets not for their popularity but for their novelty value, one can claim amongst other things, making your argument invalid, it would be valid if the potential aitiology was clearly linear, but it isn't. The internets prevalence around the world is very limited at the time being to mostly the westernized nations, which are a minority in terms of population, from the internets activity blogging is a again a marginal affair competing with news media, internetic news media, chat rooms, forums, newsgroups, message boards, internet portals etc. etc. I ve said this again. By this syllogism it's neither very popular nor very influential and certainly NOT around the world. Like i ve said a lot of times i don't have a "thing" against blogging as people have suggested in their ad hominems, but I do despise mindless media frenzies, esp. if we cannnot keep wikipedia out of these as it should be. The article as it stand is already a blogging advert, and I can't see why you keep insisting on the outrageous hyperbole in the opening paragraphs. I could tolerate as a compromise a phrase such as, "blogging has gained some attention from new media in the western world recently", but I find this version, let alone the grandiose "very influential popular and important medium in the 21st century", unacceptable. It does reinforce my view of what the blogging community is petty, self important, rambling imbecilles (and I don't want to offend anyone here, but that's the way I see it) who think the world at large finds their online rantings of grave importance, while the reality is that the world at large goes on mostly unaware of what their lonely pastime is, or at best equally spending their time between the vast possibilities the internet offers, amongst them the blog.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.22.30 ( talk •  contribs) 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd tolerate that compromise phrase, why don't you put it in, rather than continue bloviating about it here? That kind of qualifying is something that very few people would argue against. We're gonna need another page archive once this is done, I swear. Also, please sign your posts - I'm getting tired of signing them for you. -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed rodii's reply and I am responding to it now. "So what kind of evidence would satisfy you, o skeptical anon? How does one evaluate the importance of a medium? " Α proper statisticall significant prevalence study for starters would be a good idead, that would verify the prevalence for certain. Of course importance a very qualitative term, and a very subjective one too, to quantify, i think the only way one can do it is by associating importance with prevalence, or find some way to quantify public opinion reactions with respect to a news medium. I d take for example a sample in certain community and do a questionaire on thema about the news they read recently, the where they read them, they how they reacted to...etc..that's how a proper sociological study is done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.22.30 ( talk •  contribs) 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I normally don't play the logical fallacy game, but since you seem to have a preoccupation with them - you objected to the phrase "very influential popular and important medium in the 21st century". However that isn't even the phrase we're arguing over. The words "influential" and "important" aren't used in the actual phrase you removed. For this reason you are using a straw man argument. And please sign your comments. Rhobite 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply above, that's very helpful, largely because it allows me to more or less discount what you have to say. You're asking for a standard of proof that's higher than just about anything else we have on Wikipedia, which, although it tries to reflect scholarly consensus, is not in itself a scholarly organ. I think it's clear from everything that you write above that the reason you set the bar so high is because you dislike blogs and feel contempt for the people involved with them. I don't think we really need to worry too much about satisfying anyone's hidden agenda. That said, you make the very good point that the claim that weblogs are important needs either to be sourced or to be nuanced. It is very true that there's a lot of hype and hot air associated with the genre, and we should be wary of simply repeating inflated claims as if they were true. I think the way to approach this is to report that such claims have been made, and that they have been criticized by others, and in the absence of any definitive studies leave it at that. That's not what you're doing, though, o anon. You're just blanking the passage without any attempt I can see to improve it, with the knowledge that you can provoke a reaction here and thus have a forum to express your disgruntlement about Western-centric views of the internet. That's not what we're here for, though; we're here to write an encyclopedia and that means proposing ways to improve this article. Some assessment of the importance of blogs is clearly called for. A constructive proposal would be great; if you just want to bitch about blogs, get one of your own. ·  rodii · 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To Rhodite: "I normally don't play the logical fallacy game" If we are to have any discourse we ll have to abide by the laws of reasoning, either implicitly or explicitly, it's not a "game" as your loaded language would have it. I wasn't quoting the orinal phrase I removed verbatim, still according to what you are saying "The words "influential" and "important" aren't used in the actual phrase you removed. For this reason you are using a straw man argument" so here I quote the original sentence: "blogging has quickly emerged as a popular and important means of communication, affecting public opinion and mass media around the world." The word "important" is there verbatim, and the second part of the sentence is what I described as "influential". Next time you try to catch me on semantics instead of replying to my actually arguments, and while not attacking me personaly as you have a habit to, try reading for a change.

To Rodii: "You're asking for a standard of proof that's higher than just about anything else we have on Wikipedia, which, although it tries to reflect scholarly consensus, is not in itself a scholarly organ." No I am not asking that wikipedia becomes a review of scholarly articles, although in a broader sense than mere peer reviewed papers wikipedia does aim at being scholarly, in the sense that the originators of the first encyclopedia in France a few hundred years ago aimed at. What I find unacceptable is to use irrelevant unscientific (wrt to the issues at hand) here to base an otherwise erroneous hyperbole on. "I think it's clear from everything that you write above that the reason you set the bar so high is because you dislike blogs and feel contempt for the people involved with them. I don't think we really need to worry too much about satisfying anyone's hidden agenda." It's not very helpful if you keep insisting that I reply to ulterior motive accusations instead of arguments, but with the same logic i am not here to satisfy anyone else's hidden agenda of promoting their medium of choice by mean of unfounded exageration. "I think the way to approach this is to report that such claims have been made, and that they have been criticized by others, and in the absence of any definitive studies leave it at that. That's not what you're doing, though, o anon. You're just blanking the passage without any attempt I can see to improve it..." Ι am actually the only here bothered to propose an alternative phrasing for the guilty sentence, no one from the apparent blogophile camp has bothered to, chosing instead to attack me personaly, withour ever actually bothering to reply to any of my arguments. They have reverted my changes persistantly hoping that they d halt any discourse on the issue and have their hyperboles validated by wikipedia on sheer force of insistence. 213.5.26.158 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here and on the Swarthmore College page, it says that Hall is "widely considered" to have been the first blogger. Is there any source for this? I have just spent 15 mins googling for one, to no avail. The SF Chronicle (and his own Wikipedia page) says he was a "pioneer" blogger, but I haven't found a citation that he was first (at least from a credible, non-Wikipedia-linked source). I don't necessarily doubt it (someone had to be first), but whenever I see the phrase "widely considered" without a couple of citations, I get the willies. -- Gnetwerker 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article to more explicitly state that this is unconfirmed. I also removed the word "celebrity", since his public stature does not warrant that term. If someone can find sources, please list them in the article and change the wording to reflect that this is confirmed. I lean against removing it from the page, since it still provides some valuable information to people who want to know about the early history of blogging. -- bwabes 23:27, 7 March 2006 (EST)

It is well-supported in sources that he was a "pioneer". Perhaps that is the solution. -- Gnetwerker 07:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He is "widely considered" the first blogger documented as such unless someone can come up with an earlier candidate. JWZ has been suggested but I don't know dates. Several others are noted as precursors in the article. And of course there's Vigdor Schreibman. :) There's an essential arbitrariness to picking out any "first" in an evolutionary process, but if someone has to have that spot, it is true that Justin is "widely considered" to be the one. ·  rodii · 13:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that no one "has" to have that spot. If we can list a source stating that he was an early journaller, that would would definitely help the validity. But if no one can be definitively stated as the first, then saying "early" is all we can do. If there are lots of sources that cite him as the first journaller and if you can put them up on the article then we can be confident to add "widely considered". Bwabes 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a pretty good memory of Justin's Links from the Underground, and I'm pretty sure that they were not of the "online diary" style in 1994. It depends on what you consider a blog, but a list of links with a description is not a blog in my mind, even a list of links that is updated frequently. Was Cool Site of the Day a blog? There are a couple of diaries that certainly started in 1995, but I'm a skeptic of Justin's.

Hello, fellow editors. I stumbled upon this Weblog FAQK and was wondering if the things he says about the coming of age of the weblogs after the WTC disasters. Is it true? -- rolandog 07:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That site, The Brunching Shuttlecocks, is a humor site. But that particular answer may be intended seriously. So I dunno. In any event, it's a matter of interpretation--I wouldn't take it as "true" in any real sense. ·  rodii · 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Traditional what? What is this supposed to be saying? ·  rodii · 16:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Traditional media, possibly -- Thesquire ( talk - contribs) 20:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ciel, j’ai ma notice dans Wikipedia ! : Daniel Schneidermann talking in his blog ( www.bigbangblog.net) about Wikipedia. Blogg1 17:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• And? ·  rodii · 18:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several different types of references and footnote links in this article. I thought (for about ten seconds) about trying to covert them to a uniform system (ideally using <ref/>), but realized I was just not confident of my understanding of the system. Any ideas on how we could improve this? ·  rodii · 00:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)