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.

I've removed this text:

In the United Kingdom, a college lecturer contributed to a blog in which she referred to a politician (who had also expressed his views in the same blog) using various uncomplimentary names, including referring to him as a "Nazi". The politician found out the real name of the lecturer (she wrote under a pseudonym) via the ISP and successfully sued her for £10,000 in damages and £7,200 costs. ^[1]

The cited article clearly states this occurred in a chatroom, not on a blog. Furthermore, the name of the person was obtained by checking her email address which used her full name, not "from the ISP". http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar/23/digitalmedia.law Ramore

While I'm as bothered as anyone by the Microsoft blogging controversy, I was surprised to find it in this article. Why does this belong in an encyclopedia article about blogs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.103.203.4 ( talk) 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. No need to list every single controversy or argument that involves bloggers in the main Blog article. Why is this one in particular mentioned while excluding all the others? Kevinharder 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also pointless becasue there isn't really an issue. It states that laptops were given to bloggers, and if they were journalists, it would have been illegal. It's just an irrelevant fact, and way too undetailed in the first place. Slayer425 16:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone creates a blog or journal that is not diaplayed in reverse-chronological order, why is that not considered a blog? Is there any source that says this must be true?

Furthermore - how is it possible to display entries in reverse-chronological order? That would mean one has to write the last entry first, and the first entry last. From what I have seen, blog entries made in 2007, appear in 2007. Entries made in 2008 don't appear until 2008. As the 2007 entry existed before the 2008 entry, the 2007 entry is displayed first. How do you display an entry that doesn't even exist yet?

Another conundrum - some blogs allow you to customize the display order. If I go to a blog that displays its index in descending chronological order, and change the preference to display in ascending chronological order - does it suddenly cease to be a blog?

I would say it does not. What is important about a blog is that it is "serial" and thus is a series of postings in a chronological order. Placing the newest at the top is simply a reading preference; many people read blogs in RSS readers in forward chronological order. What differentiated blogs from more ordinary browsed web sites was their serial nature, I would recommend this simpler definition.-- Bradtem 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

um. entries can be in reverse chronological order because as every new post is added it is shown at the top of the page and all entries prior to it get moved down. 165.21.155.75 ( talk) 14:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That isn't reverse chronological order - it's descending chronological order. Reverse chronological order would require (as the OP said) that the latest entries appear on the page first and some time later, earlier and earlier entries start to materialise on the page. Descending chronological order means the oldest entries are listed below the newest ones on the page. 123.208.27.124 ( talk) 05:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed up at the top of the page on the subject of the 'Types of Links' section, but I'm fairly certain that the article can't be complete without a mention of the importance of the group blog in the development of the blogosphere - so much so that I created a page for Collaborative Blog.

As mentioned in the article, 7 of the top 10 blogs on NZ Bear's Ecosystem are group blogs. Additionally, it would be churlish not to mention such mega-group blogs such as DailyKos somewhere in the article.

So, even if it's only in the 'See Also' section I'd appreciate it if someone with editing permission could include it.

p.s. Please feel free to visit the collaborative blog page and add any information you feel is relevant. I've been out of the game for a couple of years now, so my recent knowledge will undoubtedly be a little rusty.

Sortap 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Sortap

The topic 'blogswarm' redirects to this page, yet there is no information about that phenomenon in this article. I believe the topic needs its own article, including some of the more famous blogswarms over the years. Without objection, I'll create that page, removing the redirect. Arjunasbow 00:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Bebo should be added too the See Also section as this is a quickly developing social network site.

Local teenagers in my area (New Zealand) seem to currently prefer Bebo to the other social networking pages like MySpace.

Nightkhaos 11:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a mention about Captain's Quarters. The influence it had, at least for a moment, and the legal issues that arose at the time of its involvement in the Adscam are of special interest. Or so at least when compared to other examples given in the article... -- Childhood's End 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed a ton of links they I believed were not core to blogging. For example I removed all the social networking links, but left a link to a list of social networking sites. Let us know if you disagree with a removal. Daniel.Cardenas 16:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a note about some early history of blogs (from personal experience, but with cites of course) which may nonetheless open some questions, so I thought I would add some background reasoning here.

When Tim Berners-Lee defined the web, he designed it to include many of the media that had come before, and to this day URLs include means to access ftp servers, gopher servers, telnet sessions, sending E-mail and both USENET newsgroups and individual USENET articles. I know from both his writings and personal conversations that he considered these things to be part of the web, though they were not done in hypertext with HTML and HTTP. Thus the web log as a concept (if not the name) will predate what many people other than Berners-Lee think of as the period of the web. USENET and E-mail mailing lists were the primary forms of serial publishing on the pre-HTTP web (another key characteristic of a blog is that it's serial.) E-mail writing was part of the web, reading E-mail never became part of it until web-based E-mail readers appeared. As such, I believe the earliest blogs are found among moderated newsgroups. Most moderated newsgroups did not have the third component a blog needs (a personal editorial voice) but some did, and the earliest of these was mod.ber, so I have added a small section on it. You can still read mod.ber's archives with the link I provide. At some point there should be an article about it and Brian Redmond. I know him but only distantly, so I have not yet prepared one.-- Bradtem 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be wandering into the realm of original research. A key difference is that newsgroups until relatively recently (I'm thinking of deja.net which became Google Groups) did not have "persistence" in the way that blogs have archives. Plus they have a highly specialized client (the newsreader), while Web clients were always intended to be jacks-of-all-trades to begin with. -- Coolcaesar 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While my expertise in the area does indeed come from having participated, the fundamental details are of course cited from other sources to avoid the problem of being original research. There are a number of blogs that don't persist, so I have not considered that part of the definition of a blog, and in any event, USENET was archived, and that's why you can read the archives of mod.ber today - I linked to them. Deja News did not build the archives, those were done by others are used much later by Deja (and Google which bought it) -- Bradtem 23:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives of Usenet groups weren't easily available until the web, I believe. Given that "Blog" is short for "web log" I'd say that pretty much indicates we should be sticking to WEB-based things here. I mean, we could include a LOT of things if we start looking for examples. Books, newspapers, diaries, fanzines, etc etc etc... Also, I don't think your citations are significant enough to stop this being original research. You don't cite anyone who's said that mod.ber was a blog, you simply link to the archives of the website. That's original research, isn't it? -- Lijil 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The point, as indicated in the citations, is that the "web" was defined, by the coiner of the term, and in the protocol specifications, to include USENET, so I hope we are sticking to web-based things here. Books, newspapers etc. are not part of the web, though finger, gopher, wais and USENET are.-- Bradtem 04:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? And you didn't answer my point about your sources being insufficient for your point in the first case. Unless you can cite a source that claims that those usenet discussions were precursors to blogs, we should delete that section because it is original research. -- Lijil 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One source is cited in the text, which describes the inclusion of usenet/nntp support as stage 1 of the WWW project. You will find similar references in just about any document regarding the web, such as [ this one] or [ this one] or many others. I guess it depends on what you view as "research." If you recognize TimBL's inclusion of USENET in the web, do you assert that these things that were identical in purpose to today's weblogs were not weblogs or their precursors? Which are you asserting is not accepted, TimBL's definition, or the similarity of mod.ber and today's well known blogs? -- Bradtem 08:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Both. I read the source you gave for the idea that usenet is part of the web, and don't see that assertion made in it. And if the only external source for the assertion that mod.ber and other usenet groups are "the first blogs" is an interview with YOURSELF, well, that's hardly objective,encyclopedic content, eh? Lijil

I don't, and wouldn't cite an interview with myself. Where do you think I am citing such? What I cite above (and can move into the article) is Tim Berners-Lee's design specifications and definition of the web, which describe it as encompassing a wide range of protocols, with specific reference to several including ftp, nntp/usenet/netnews and the like. However since you don't seem to see it (read the 2nd cite above if you haven't) I have put in a request for a confirmation that I am sure will be authoritative enough for you.-- Bradtem 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm chiming in here because Eric Reiss created a kind of blog back in February 1997 (there is a non-graphic version on the WayBack Machine) in Rick's Cafe, which was a subsite of Cross Border Communications in Copenhagen Denmark. This was a very early Flash-based site in which various "guests" in a stylized cafe editorialized on various aspects of the web. Comments were invited to these brief "blogposts". The site was voted Macromedia Site of the Week sometime in April or May of 1997 (which is when I first saw it. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Mr. Reiss also mentioned weblogs specifically in one of the first books on information architecture in 2000, Practical Information Architecture. OK. This page is not open to edits from amateurs like me. But I wanted to mention this very early contribution to the genre. Joshua R Smith ( talk) 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the early history is wrong, I was using the term Blog before 99 in my old bands website for a "diary" online log back in the Angelfire/Tripod days around 97/98 and I'm pretty sure the term was around before then and I didn't invent it (although maybe I could have, but I very very much doubt it).

Are any of those early uses datably archived, perhaps on the Wayback Machine? What was your site's URL? John M Baker ( talk) 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just caught an episode of MST3K where the movie was called "Sidehackers." Second season, second episode, first aired in 1992 by Comedy Central. In it there is a riff from crow where he mocks a scene -
Woman: I never got your name.
Man: Ronald.
Crow: Oh you magnificent son of a bitch! I read your blog!
Surely the usage of the term blog as it is currently used was the same back then, given the context of the riff. chrisD 76.177.111.115 ( talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick edit to the above - it's ROMMEL not Ronald, which makes the riff that much more funny. Anyway... it wasn't a misquote on the blog part, he really said blog! chrisD 76.177.111.115 ( talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Give the lack of evidence of widespread use of "blog" as early as 1992, I would want to see evidence that this was not a line added to the rerun. John M Baker ( talk) 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Listened to it again, it does say book. My mistake. chrisD 76.177.111.115 ( talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This section seems to be getting a little long and unfocused. Some reorganization seems to be in order. Perhaps break into a couple/few sections? Some of the entries refer more to inadvertent (negative?) consequences to blogging, rather than legal issues per se. The Ellen Simonetti entry has focussed on employee v. employer rights and responsibilities in blogging; perhaps that issue could be a separate section. Another could be something like "blogging and defamation legalities", etc. Perhaps a section, or even a new wikipedia entry, listing famous examples of blogging and consequences. Bdushaw 00:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any examples of men who were fired for blogging about their employer and/or personal lives? Bdushaw 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes James Howard was fired by the Dadeland mall in Miami because of his blog. also.... According to a man living in Miami FL he invented the blog in 1982. His name is James Howard, you can view his website at www.showmeblog.com Go and see what he has to say for yourself. He is addiment that he is the worlds first "blog".

Remember the time when blogs were banned in India, Pakistan ? Does that need to be mentioned 122.162.58.39 09:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody seems to have changed a line near the beginning of the page where it explains what blogs are. They removed the text that said that a blog can also be an online diary/journal, presumably because the person makes a distinction between online journals and blogs. However, the blogging community would seem to disagree since so many blogs *are* personal diaries. I'm not a registered user at the moment, but perhaps somebody could revert that statement? To say that blogs cannot be personal diaries is disingenuous at best. 24.96.212.167 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I write this the opening line of the article says "A blog is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order." which covers personal diaries and journals. Did you have a more specific change in mind? Gwernol 13:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This line, "Blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news." was originally "Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries." It was changed this morning. That's the change I was looking to be reverted. 24.96.212.167 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, looks like it was reverted by Rador. So hopefully it stays that way. :) 24.96.212.167 14:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been here recently, but a definition I was happy with a long time ago is gone and now it says this: "A blog (short for web log) is a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order."

I would suggest modifying it to look lilke this:

"A blog (short for web log) is a website where entries are displayed in reverse chronological order."

user-generated website - The website might not always be user generated, but the content might be.

journal style - Doesn't have to be... Stevegarfield 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Today in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-internet31mar31,0,4064392.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The unfortunate fear factor - a successful blogger may attract kooks, or at least those that would use fear to stifle the bloggers dialog. This would seem to be a product of the anonymity element of the blogging process. 24.41.39.124 07:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

The following paragraph has confused me slightly:

"Blogs can be hosted by dedicated blog hosting services, or they can be run using blog software, such as WordPress, Movable Type, blogger or LiveJournal, or on regular web hosting services, such as DreamHost."

I was not aware LiveJournal was blogging software (my understanding being that blogging software = "personal publishing programme" that you can put on your own domain) I thought LJ was a dedicated blog hosting service?

Also, is it necessary to mention DreamHost?

To me, it would be clearer as:

"Blogs can be hosted by dedicated blog hosting services, such as LiveJournal, Deadjournal, Typepad, Vox or Wordpress.com. Alternatively they can be run on regular web hosting services using blog software - otherwise known as personal publishing platforms/programs - such as WordPress, Movable Type, blogger, Expression Engine or Greymatter."

-- Vertilly 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Under "Type", then "Genre" your link to "Slog" goes to a page about cricket (the sport) slogs. Shouldn't it go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slog_%28blog%29, which is a page about site blogs? When you take the link provided in this article it goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slog, which page itself provides another link to "Slog (disambiguation)", from which you can get to the real page you want, but it seems silly to have to go that round-about way to get to the information you want. AlanEarl 19:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Add Wikipedia article Blog Promotion to Blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guadalupa543 ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

FYI: Just found something about his professional background: [1] 84.173.230.72 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

..Some blogs were an important news source during the December 2004 Tsunami such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, which used SMS text messaging to report from affected areas in Sri Lanka and Southern India.

To the best of my knowledge, MSF wasn't blogging in the Tsunami's aftermath. The blog that defined disaster relief blogging was the South-East Asia Earthquake and Tsunami blog (See Intelliseek's Blogpulse for one study, Google's tsunami relief page and also the TsunamiHelp media coverage page). And the blog that reported and used text messaging was the now-defunct http://desimediabitch.blogspot.com, which at that time was called C*S*F, short for Chien(ne)s Sans Frontieres, which was a tongue-in-cheek homage to MSF. I'm posting this as a suggestion rather than editing the page myself since I was involved with both TsunamiHelp and C*S*F, and my views, as a result, can hardly be seen as neutral. Zigzackly 21:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling Kathy Sierra's blog "innocuous", while accurate, is an opinion-based statement and inappropriate coverage.

In the types section it says "one comprising links is called a linklog,[11]" however the cited document says that one that contains links is called a weblog, can this please be corrected 88.107.32.193 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the broad definition of blog, I think there needs to be some discussion of how to distinguish a blog from an online magazine. It never actually says that blogs are all written (or mostly written) by one person; is that intended to be part of the definition? If so then it starts to become clearer; an electronic magazine would be written by multiple people with one or a small group of "editors".

Trouble is, Boing Boing for example is widely referred to as a blog, and yet is clearly more accurately described as an online magazine. Making Light perhaps a little less like a magazine, but three people currently have and use article-posting rights there. Both are clearly blogs in general usage.

This distinction is particularly important since "blogs" are explicitly not considered reliable (I believe, though I can't read the minds of the people making these decisions, because they're completely controlled by one person, and hence have no checks and balances on their accuracy). Since this article is cited in that article, it appears that the definition of blog here is becoming part of the Wiki standard for what's considered verifiable.

Dd-b 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why the definition of blog would have any explicit declaration of non-reliabilty. My personal view is the best way to characterize a blog is to say it has a "personal editorial voice" but that need not be just one person's voice. However, whatever definition we use should be a result of citation of definition efforts by external experts.-- Bradtem 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can add the following language entry to the article tt:Blog

Thank you!

The dates for Xanga in this entry are completely different to the dates given in the separate entry dedicated to Xanga. Could someone please check which dates are correct? -- Lijil 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An user claim "Chronicles, commonplaces, diaries, perzines and amateur press associations can all be seen as predecessors of blogs" is not relevant to Blog. But I don't think so. It explain why and how people are interested in Blogging at first place well. I believe it is historical origin.-- Alf 04:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Any assertion on Wikipedia, especially such a sweeping and broad claim, must be neutral and should be supported by citation to reliable, and verifiable sources. Please read all three Wikipedia official policies: WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. I am countermanding your edit and reinstating Kjoonlee's deletion of that text. If you think that sentence should stay, find a reliable and verifiable source that actually makes that assertion. -- Coolcaesar 08:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In the section elaborating possible effects blogging may have on a blogger's employment, it would enhance the section's effectiveness to not only present anecdotal evidence of the effects but to also provide related survey data, particularly where the surveyor has credibility. I.E. flow from ancedotes to a summary discussion of impact.
For example, this page provides stats that underscore that employers (and their agents) are now researching candidate mentions on the web. A personal blog is likely to be found and included in the cadidate's "file". Nearly one half of the recruiters responding to the referenced survey indicated they had eliminated a candidate due to their own negative reaction to information found on the web. Perhaps more surveys can be found and included

ACEdit 15:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

please could someone tidy up & move this section.

I spend my time adding content but am too lazy to format it correctly.

Sorry, but at least i am honest and content is what it is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chulcoop ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

my section on the TV serialisation of a blog has been removed. I think this is relevant. Could people comment on its suitability & include in an appropriate format. It is below:

- == Television Serialisation Of A Blog == - - In the United Kingdom the Belle De Jour blog about a london prostite has been serialised. It is due to be shown near the end of the month on the ITV network. - - The official site for this is at http://www.itv.com/secretdiary/ and the belle de jour blog can be found at http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.com/ BBC news story on this is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6354397.stm -

Cliff Chulcoop 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's suitable; if it were put in, I'd delete it as an ad. -- Orange Mike 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is mentioned in tbe Billie Piper entry

it mentions the Belle de Jour book. In fact her book was based on her blog so essentially it is the first (to my knowledge) serial tv adaptation in the UK based on a blog.

I am not aware of any blogs in the UK or elsewhere ever having been televised before.

Chulcoop 23:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in the Belle de Jour (writer) article too. A first? Given the omnivorous appetite of the entertainment industry for "content", I wouldn't bet on that. Can you source your theory? Otherwise, it's Original Research. -- Orange Mike 00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Belle de joure will do more research.

However i have extra. Yes this is Original Research however everyone in Britain KNOWS this to be true as FACT. I just have to source it.

David Cameron is the first leader of a major politican party in the UK to become a blogger. He set up his blog www.webcameron.org on it he shows video clips and responds directly to voters questions.

The bottom line is this. I am lazy. I want to add info which I know others can improve upon and back up, so hopefully i can put it into talk sections like this which others can run with.

Also as i understand it Wikipedia does not need ONLINE references just references even if they are in a book that is hard to find.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5394766.stm

I can also tell you re: Belle de Jour I am not aware of any IN THE UK blogs that have been televised before this.

Chulcoop 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Poetblog Matters proposes a mix between personal text writing, meta data annotation and a search engine using the meta data. The site serves as an experiment. Its purpose is to use the meta data to speed up looking for information of personal interest. I think it deserves mentioning as idea. Also it needs a user base large enough to make the project interesting.

Poetblog Matters

Please add it to external links.

84.197.88.223 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. -- Orange Mike 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add Will Richardson's Blogs, Wikis Podcasts and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms to the list of additional resources at the bottom of the blog entry. It is a worth while read for an introduction to the use of blogs, especially for educators.

Hansensteann 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC) hansensteann

The article says, "One example of a news based 'weblog' is the Drudge Report," but the Drudge Report doesn't meet the article's simple definition of a blog, which is, "a website where entries are written in chronological order." The site is a simple collection of outbound links displayed in whatever arrangement Drudge likes, vanishing entirely from the site when Drudge is done with them. If Drudge doesn't call it a blog, and it doesn't fit the article's definition of a blog, should the Drudge Report not be removed from the article? 72.244.207.209 09:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish

Worthy of a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.9.231 ( talk) 09:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Just one more person's rant. -- Orange Mike 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we should have a list of famous blogs like espn fantasy [blog spam removed— DMacks] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.86.134 ( talk) 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No. For example, neither of those, in my opinion, is even vaguely "famous"; your opinion, apparently, differs (or else you're spamming us for one or the other). See the hideous trainwreck which is "Prominent political blogs by country" in political blog. -- Orange Mike 05:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Same anon user added this same type of comment (with same extlink URL) to several pages; I've removed it as spam. Still available in the page hist if anyone wants to discuss it seriously. DMacks 19:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In the first sentence I tried to change "entries are written in chronological order" to "entries are shown in chronological order" but it was reverted for being incorrect. How does one write or do anything but in chronological order? Life is in chronological order. Doesn't the sentence mean that the entries are shown/displayed in a chronological order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaphead ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another High profile case worth noting is poh huai bin's legal troubles in malaysia [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magehiro ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Tech_blog entry is orphaned, may be worth adding to the "See Also" section. Good Morning Silicon Valley was a very early tech blog, beta-tested in July and August 1996 and officially launched September 1996 (see press release at www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18666929.html). Created by Patricia Sullivan (myself), and continued by John Paczkowski (now with AllThingsD) and John Murrell, it was part of the MercuryCenter website, part of the San Jose Mercury News newspaper. Psullivan1 ( talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone remember early this decade, from 00 to 03, there was a type of website called EN Websites? Some claimed that EN stood for Everything/Nothing while others that it stood for Entertainment/News but it was only a particular kind of website that could be called EN. Nobody remembers? Fark, Stileproject, SomethingAwful among many others labeled themselves as EN Sites. Despite the fact that the term "Blog" already existed in 2001 it was still seldom used on the internet. The term that was being used to describe what we are now calling "Blogs" was "Everything/Nothing". Nobody remembers that? I am not jogging any memories? These EN Sites deserve a mention here because they are definitely one of the legitimate ancestors of what we now call "Blogs". I think this article misses the whole original point of blogging. It was a colorful, shocking, hilarious, immature, highly spirited attack against the mainstream. Far from what this article would have us believe, Blogging has only very recently been an internet phenomenon with aspirations of mainstream legitimacy. Blogs were not dressed in a tie and business suit like this article suggests.... blogs wore piercings, a cowboy hat, a tutu, green hair and tatoos. Only in recent times, now that the internet has become the mainstream, have blogs developed into this mature thing that is supposedly a conduit of responsible journalism that even the Wall Street Journal decided to get involved in. Ryan Albrey ( talk) 06:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also why do we have a section named "Blogging consequences"? As if it were a problem with blogging itself that causes bloggers to lose their jobs and get put in prison for upsetting totalitarian governments! The article reads: "Political dangers: Blogging can sometimes have unforeseen consequences in politically sensitive areas." Can we please call a spade a spade? That sentence can be replaced with "Blogs are much harder to control than print and broadcast media. As a result totalitarian dictatorships across the planet are in a constant struggle to close down blogs." That blogging can sometimes have unforeseen consequences in politically sensitive areas reads like something that the Chinese, Malaysian or Singaporean Government might write. Ryan Albrey ( talk) 06:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Some critics worry that bloggers respect neither copyright nor the role of the mass media in presenting society with credible news." This is from the section titled, "Blurring with the mass media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.227.18 ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the history of the blogosphere section, early blogging, there is no mention of Dave Winer or scripting news, which many sources on blogging cite as one of, if not the first blog. Is this intentional or just an oversight? -David Parry 70.129.103.195 ( talk) 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. He's been particularly associated with the technical underpinnings of blog platforms (I'm thinking of RSS) but no mention at all. Does someon want to rectify? 195.152.249.12 ( talk) 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look later today and try to add some text, but wanted to ask before I added. -David Parry 70.129.103.195 ( talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Will you be able to source\cite a valid reference to this? I looked over the Dave Winer article and it didn't mention this. SDSandecki ( talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the intro to the Dave Winer page mentions scripting news (with citations) as one of the oldest blogs. 70.129.103.195 ( talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't ask me how I missed that, cite\source seems valid to me. SDSandecki ( talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't edit as this page is semi-protected-David Parry Academicdave ( talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Apply it in this section and I will add it. SDSandecki ( talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to submit for the 2006 section of this page about blogger the success story of blogger Mark Bellinghaus. He exposed, debunked and stopped what seems to be the biggest exhibition fraud in history. We are talking about an estimated amount of $100 million. Please consider this for your info about blogger.

Weareallone ( talk) 10:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested add after Jerry Pournelle in 1994-2001 section: Dave Winer's Scripting News is also credited with being one of the oldest and longest running weblogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicdave ( talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I need a reference to the above statement that is valid, can anyone supply this? SDSandecki ( talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations: same as from Dave Winer entry. Paul Festa. "Newsmaker: Blogging comes to Harvard", CNET, February 25, 2003. Retrieved on 2007-01-25. "..Dave Winer... whose Scripting News (scripting.com) is one of the oldest blogs." David F. Gallagher. "TECHNOLOGY; A rift among bloggers", New York Times, 10 June 2002. and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicdave ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, please review and request any changes you would like. Thanks for the edit! SDSandecki ( talk) 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to submit for the 2006 section of this page about blogger the success story of blogger Mark Bellinghaus. He exposed, debunked and stopped what seems to be the biggest exhibition fraud in history. We are talking about an estimated amount of $100 million. Please consider this for your info about blogger.

Weareallone ( talk) 10:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a little amazed at the removal of the information about my relation to blogging history. Contrary to article? I wrote a phd on the topic, ^[2]. which was referenced and is online. And provided a link to demonstrate that have provided blog content on the web continuously since Jan. 1995. I know of no other blog prior to this that was political in nature and not merely a diary. If something is truthful and factual, as well as documented with a dissertation and the actual product is still online, and happens to be self-promotional, well so be it. If you don't like the wording, change it. But to see claims that blogging was invented in 1997 (as claimed by Economist article) when I still run a web page with blog content from 1995 (and earlier via gopher sinc 1993 and email since 1989) is the honest truth of the matter. Because I work outside of the Internet community that does this for the technical thrill, and have used these tools for actual social good should not disqualify me. I can refer you to dozens of people that have followed this work for decades from both academia and the environmental world. I believe this content was removed because of someone against my environmental activism on libertarian grounds, and not because it was not historically accurate. Does anyone dispute that I have blogged since 1995 and they are still online and I got a phd for writing about it?( talk) 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First, please assume good faith. Second, please read our conflict of interest policy, as it is inappropriate to post content about oneself. Third, please see our policy regarding sources, as self-published sources are generally frowned upon. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the organization of this article to be needing some work. It is front loaded with blogging history, which is becoming a blogging time line - based on experience with other articles with the same problem, that's a problem. A time line will just continue to grow and get rather bloated. IMO, the article should start off with what a blog is. At the very bottom there is now a section "Personal blog" which...well, the classic blog is personal...that should be given under blogging types, at the top.

May I suggest that "blogging history" be broken out into a separate article giving a blogging time line, to be replaced by a much shorter section further down in the article giving a very brief, 2 paragraphs say, history of the blog?

So this is to start a discussion of a reorganization. If there are no objections after "a time", I'll proceed with an attempt at reorganization. Bdushaw ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a more "modeled" plan of your re-organization effort. Can you please provide in much more details your re-organization plans. Don't forget proper referencing and citations will be required with any and all content changes where nessesary. SDSandecki ( talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still contemplating what to do, perhaps hoping for suggestions as well. The basic plan is to either move Blog History down to the bottom of the article, or move it to a separate new article "Blogging timeline". Then everything would move up, with blogging types now being the start of the article, which is where it ought to be IMO. An encyclopedia article on "blog" ought to describe what a blog is up front, seems to me. Blogging types then needs some development/reorganization - it doesn't really describe blogging types in a consistent way. At the very bottom of the article now is "personal blog"...which I thought blogs were mainly personal blogs, so perhaps that should be moved into blogging types at the top.

Those were my thoughts - I'm ramping up for how best to do this, and hoping for a community consensus and input as to what is best. The consensus may be to leave it alone, there is no problem, in which case, o.k. (but my opinion is the article needs some work). Bdushaw ( talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Final notice/warning...I'll likely attempt this reorganization in the next few days/over the weekend. Happy to wait a while longer if anyone would like to discuss the reorganization more. Note that this is not really a change or addition to content, just a reorganization. All things considered, I think I will move blogging history to a separate time line article (unless there are complaints about that plan). The main article could then use a short section with a distillation of the blogging history. Bdushaw ( talk) 00:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and implemented a start at a reorganization. This involved breaking the History section into the new page History_of_blogging_timeline - copied verbatim. I moved the History section down to the bottom and did a very modest attempt to condense it. The blogging types section needs a lot of work - this seems to me the meat and potatoes of the article. If you all hate it, and I hope you don't, there is always revert... Bdushaw ( talk) 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Weblog network is a stub article that doesn't seem to be significant on its own. It seems like its content should be merged into this one. Any comments?-- Aervanath ( talk) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

in 'political dangers' it says that "Egyptian blogger Abdel Monem Mahmoud was arrested in April 2007 for things written in his blog." shouldn't 'things' be specified? 165.21.155.73 ( talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see one of the to do items was to add images to the article. Some obvious additions would be screenshots of notable blog pages. I see there are a few such images already. I wonder what the licensing of such screenshots would be - having had trouble with the licensing of images issue before, it would be nice if we could come up with a valid licensing statement so that we could add blog screenshots more easily while avoiding legal trouble (i.e. people deleting the images). (signature added later) Bdushaw ( talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From the Village Pump: It constitutes fair use if you can come up with a rationale that sounds reasonable, e.g. "screenshots enliven" is probably right out.

Here's a couple steps. First, figure out the blog's license. Look at the blog itself for licensing information. If the blog is under a free license such as public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, it can be used on Wikipedia without a fair use claim. If you can't find an explicit license release, you must assume that all rights are reserved. Second, upload the image with a {{ Non-free web screenshot}} tag. Third, you must add a rationale (per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline) for each use, itemizing why you think the image can be used as fair use. A lot of people get confused about who is asserting free use at this point; you, as the uploader and editor, are asserting a fair use claim, not the community or the site. Fourth, add the image to the pages for which you have asserted fair use.

The caveat is that fair use becomes less reasonable the more it is used, especially if there are freely licensed alternatives. For example, having multiple 'general' screenshots of the same site might raise questions. In the case of a page like blog, one would have to be very clear about what each screenshot uniquely adds to the page, to avoid it becoming a battle of spammers seeking to have their site portrayed as "the blog". There is already a freely licensed image on that page, so it would be an uphill climb to convince editors that a fair use image merits inclusion. Bdushaw ( talk) 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC) (but not written by me)

Under the Personal Blogs section there is a link spammed with the title Search Engine Concepts. Mmntmr ( talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This line in the "Popularity" Section:

Recently, through the mass popularity of sponsored post ventures such as PayPerPost many personal blogs have started writing sponsored posts for advertisers wanting to boost buzz about new products and services. It has revolutionised the blogosphere almost in the same way that Google AdSense did.[19]

seems out of place. 'revolutionised' seems like hyperbole, and mentioning the hairy issue of sponsored posts at all should at least warrant a more thorough review that acknowledges the existence of some controversy. My intention is to just delete it (it seems a bit out of place in that section as well - what does blog monetization have to do with the popularity of them?) but I thought I'd check here first. Rzwitserloot ( talk) 19:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I see little reason why House blog needs to stand alone, and any unique content or refs can be merged into the Types section of the main blog article. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I modestly object - the only reason is that there are a million different blog types. If we merge ALL those articles into this one, then this article will become bloated beyond belief. The article now takes the (unplanned, I am sure) strategy of merely laying out the skeleton of what's out there, and provides wikilinks to other articles to flesh out the subject. political blog is an example of this. This article can't hope to describe political blog, together with all other blog types, in a reasonable way. In principle, house blog is no different than, e.g., political blog. I believe wikipedia policy is for shorter articles, and so to avoid excessive bloat to this article (and having just put in considerable effort to clean it up...), I modestly object. Besides, it seems to me house blog could use considerable development, and has the potential to become a nice article.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile having a general discussion of what to do about this broad issue. How are we to relate the infinite variety of blog types to this article, and still keep this article to a reasonable size? Bdushaw ( talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the reason for a separate article on political blogs, since many of these have had significant impact on culture/politics/news, etc (presuming properly cited as such). But many blog types can simply be described in the article: "Many blogs are focused on particular topics, such as houses, pets, food, blah blah blah". -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The principle seems to be that there is a bit of a gray area between blog topics notable enough to warrant their own page, vs. blog topics that lack the "notability" to stand on their own. I see that house blog was only created yesterday. I suppose that playing into this is that I am vaguely interested in where house blog might go/might develop into; it does seem to have at least a few reputable references. My own view is that wikipedians are a little too quick to merge/delete nascent articles. May I suggest we wait 1-2 weeks or more to see what happens with house blog before we merge it? I am somewhat loath to see a paragraph on house blog appear in this article...it opens the door to paragraphs on every other blog type, a pandora's box! One might consider a new article listing blogging types with a short entry for each type. That would save a proliferation of articles such as house blog on every blogging type out there, and spare this article of potential bloat. (I may have been editting this page recently, but I am fairly disinterested (other than I couldn't stand the mess, and no one seemed to be fixing it...:)). I am likely to wander away as an editor here. You may do as you will!) Bdushaw ( talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Nearly four weeks have passed since the nomination to merge house blog to this article, and the house blog article remains unchanged/undeveloped. I am in favor of merge now - merge house blog to a small, barely a mention in blog....IMO. Bdushaw ( talk) 03:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC) (and can we delete this nonsense below?)

I am in favor of the merge. The House Blog article looks pitiful by itself but could better flourish as a section in the Blog article. If more information gets added after this merge and the section becomes large, it can be spun off again. Right now though, merge! Yoshi thomas ( talk) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say merge but I don't know how it'd fit into the main article. Personal blogs, corporate blogs, house blogs? It almost doesn't seem notable enough to be on the front page. Joshuagross ( talk) 18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally merge, encapsulate, minimize, or take out- I've NEVER heard of a 'house blog' as category, and a separate section is ludicrous. Tremspeed ( talk) 09:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationwide where is the greatest concentration of "bloggers"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.236.44 ( talk) 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

i wanted to know the whole procedure of how a blog is created Neo matrix reloaded ( talk) 04:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Creating blogs from Wikibooks. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"Personal bloggers usually take pride in their blog posts, even if their blog is never read by anyone but them." Fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.167.109 ( talk) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gartner forecasts that blogging will peak in 2007 ..." This statement does not cite particular Gartner work product. Anittah ( talk) 19:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged it as dubious because it just sounds farfetched to me. 22:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC) White Mage Cid

The entire section should be removed as it is (a) contains phrases copied verbatim from the source, and (b) the source indicates people are studying whether blogs offer such benefits. It is far from a proven fact. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article about the usual style(s) for correcting an error in a blog entry. I've recently seen a blogger just fix the original post without any note therein, even though the comments already made referred to the erroneous information. Using one of (1) a strikeover with an inline fix, or (2) including a bold Correction, or at least (3) a postscript noting the mistake, are what I've normally seen. -- 72.70.9.199 ( talk) 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For years we pointed a copy of our irc log files to our ftp directories to create online discussions from or backup log. Later we pointed them to our gopher server and eventually many of us pointed them to our web servers document root. I used "tail -f logfile > index.html" to create my backup log web page this still works today. Some even tailed their mailbox file to index.html. These backup logs were commonly known as blog servers long before the world wide web existed. The term blog was used at the University of Wisconsin Undergraduate Projects lab where they pointed the log of their Coke server to their ftp directory so users could see the temperature of the coke machine before making the trek to the third floor to purchase one. I do not know who used the term first but this article is inconsistent and definitely in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.49.27 ( talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're close, but as I've pointed out in this discussion page before (old discussion has been purged many times since), 'Blog' stood for 'backlog' on IRC and other chat systems. Originally people would say "I'm blogged", meaning "I'm backlogged", which meant that chat convo was scrolling on their screen more slowly than it was being generated. They got the term 'backlog' from the buffer that was constantly turned on in most terminal program software in the early 1990s (such as ProTerm for Apple //, Telix for PC, Freeze Dried Terminal for Atari ST). When people had disagreements about what had been said earlier in a chat, but which had subsequently scrolled off participants screens, they would say "let me check my blog (backlog)" then they would do a cut & paste of the relevent text from their terminal buffer. Eventually, IRC became the first place where certain fan clubs would get celebrities to talk to their fans. Because some people missed these chats, people who had been present would copy their term buffer (backlog) to a Web page, and perhaps announce to the relevent IRC channel "My blog of the chat session with the guy who played Chewbacca is up at: (url)". That is the definitive etymology of "blog". Somewhere down the line mainstream journalists got confused about cyberculture, as they often did in the early days, and retro-conned the word "blog" to mean "weblog". This appears to have happened in 1999, at least 10 years after the word "blog" had become commonplace in BBS & IRC culture. Anyone who ever spent significant time on IRC prior to 1999, and that includes tens of thousands of people, KNOW that "blog" was retro-conned and if it hadn't already been in widespread use when it was ret-conned to "weblog", the ret-conning never would've worked anyway. THAT is why the REAL history of "blog" is important, inspite of the twits who run the repository of misinformation known as Wikipedia like to think... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.248.176 ( talk) 09:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a junior twit, I'd love to see this much more colorful origin proved true. Where can we find the citations for the phrase "backlog", shortened to "blog" morphed from a task queue into common use as an online journal? - JeffJonez ( talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One reference for those seeking to improve the article, from one of the more successful bloggers:

Andrew Sullivan, " Why I Blog", The Atlantic, November 2008.

-- Wfaxon ( talk) 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions WebEx as a forum software, when its actually a remote viewing / presentation software. I don't think it should be mentioned in this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.20.86 ( talk) 03:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentoining the Journalspace fiasco (they didn't backup their data, they just relied on RAID - really!!) where all their user's web log entries are now lost forever?

www.journalspace.com now redirects to: http://journalspace.com/this_is_the_way_the_world_ends/not_with_a_bang_but_a_whimper.html, and randomblog.journalspace.com also redirects to: http://journalspace.com/this_is_the_way_the_world_ends/not_with_a_bang_but_a_whimper.html

Yup, all those web logs, those precious words of wisdom, gone with the wind.

There are a few people mentioned in Wikipedia who rely on journalspace (have a wee search), and their work's gone. Did they rely on this third party to keep their data safe? I imagine some people just type away and submit their entry, never bothering to keep their own backup.

There's a message here about relying on third parties. Who can you trust with your data? Is there a guarantee, and what does it entail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.42.28 ( talk) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The page redirects from 'blag'. However, 'blag' is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Suggest a note somewhere along the lines of 'other terms for blog include...' or a bit of an explanation of how a 'blag' is different from a blog, if it is. Users searching for 'blag' are taken to this page without their question really being answered. Example: [3]. a_boardley ( talk) 13:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

TWO things are LACKING actual fact...as opinions are not facts, unless the reference is to an opinion.

So, this section appears politically biased.

The paragraph citing Trent Lott comments at the 100th birthday party of another senator do NOT include any indication, Lott defended, as did other, that while lacking taste, the words were used to stir laughter. So, unless the intention is to show the NEGATIVE impact blogs can play...this is a bad entry. Further, the Lott reference picture, has copy indicating it was blogs behind keeping the word out, which lead to his resigning.

1st, that is opinion. No fact. 2nd, it's not the only reason he resigned. If a reason at all, as it was never cited by Lott as the main reason for his resignation and unless the writer is Trent Lott, this can NOT be proven. In fact, there exist speculation on reasons other than this topic. So, the line "Senator Lott was eventually to resign over the matter." is either NOT a fatual statement and a black eye on the impact of blogs. Power sure, but if these things are true, then a man was forced to resign over a joke and people should not be hurt based on the views expressed in a blog that are both inaccurate and untrue.

I say, remove it in full, because the end result is a subjective outcome and because it include things not true.

Please consider below replacement that is factual, easily referenced to other Wiki entries the outcome is not subjective.

"As an example of the rise of importance of blogs is ongoing value the public receives when sensitive political information, often passed over by mainstream media, is communication. A shining example is ongoing blog topic about the United State Senate's longest running memeber, Democrate Robert Byrd and his often unknown past as both member and leader in the hate group Klu Klux Klan and his shared extremist views on race and segregation."

Unless specific links are provided, citing empirical studies, then it is highly doubtful that there is any significant health benefit to blogging. Even though there might have been some sort of correlation suggested by the so-called "research" referenced by this article, a correlation does not indicate causation. There are many other factors that influence immune system health, emotional outlook, and other psycho-somatic aspects of health. Thus, this statement needs to be backed up by evidence and expounded upon in great detail in order to be taken seriously by an educated audience.

-- 138.234.219.194 ( talk) 04:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be an idea to add 'economic consequences' to the list of blogging consequences. Particularly the involvement of bbc economics journo robert peston, who broke the story of northern rock, arguably causing the run on the bank, in addition to other important economics stories. It has been alleged that his high profile blog has enough influence in money circles to affect market events, so is worth putting in this section.

couple of links for starters. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870240.stm (defends northern rock story) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdecade ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

{{ editsemiprotected}}

I would suggested inserting "type of" in between "is a" and "website" in the first paragraph of this page.

Also, at some point, it should probably be noted using blogging software to create web content does not necessarily mean you've created a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Righteeoooh ( talk • contribs)

I like this, because "blog" is not a website like " google.com" is a website. Type of is more accurate. I'm changing it. ~EdGl (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I recommend removing "blog software comparison Web site created by the people of CosmoCode." as it seems to be abandoned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.200.77 ( talk) 21:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are several websites listed in this section - all include who founded them, except Open Diary, which was founded by Bruce Ableson. [4] Perhaps change it to "Bruce Ableson founded Open Diary in October, 1998..." to match the other entries. Conant1022 ( talk) 13:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The word 'blog' is not a contraction it is a portmanteau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.113.141 ( talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The current article links to artlog, which doesn't have an article. However, there is an article titled Art blog. I think the page should be edited to include this link. ( Wikiwhatnot) 22:25, 25 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhatnot ( talk • contribs)

See http://edward.de.leau.net/why-the-whole-world-is-wrong-about-weblogs-20081117.html for my reasoning on why I think the definition mentioned in here is wrong: it describes all possible websites ... not weblogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.160.68.32 ( talk) 02:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A local group of blogs is called a bloghood? I've never heard of that, and the citation is from 2001, which is a long time ago in blog-years. I recommend that part be scrapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.58.96 ( talk) 02:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Scrapped. I've never heard of this either, and it doesn't show up in first 100 Google links (though there are a few "blog hoods", not sure if that's the same). Link for citation is dead. John M Baker ( talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "weblog" was not an invention in and of itself. It obviously comes from joining the worlds "web" and "log". Therefore the word "blog" owes its lineage to the original phrase: "web log". The opening paragraph should therefore reflect the true origin of the phrase, not just one step back in it's evolution. - JeffJonez ( talk) 19:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some problems with this:

• In providing the derivation of a word, we want to show its source, not some antecedent of that source.
• And the source of "blog" is "weblog," the term explicitly referenced by Peter Merholz when he created the term "blog." "Web log" wasn't even a real possible alternative source, since virtually everyone in the 1997 - 1999 period was writing "weblog," not "web log." Pretty much every source agrees with this, even the Online Etymological Dictionary you cite. The only exception is Safire, who got it wrong.
• "Weblog" did not arise as a contraction of "web log." It arose as a contraction of "World Wide Web log." "Weblog" was created by Jorn Barger in 1997 as a single word, when (as noted above) nobody was writing "web log." The alternative form "web log" came later and could be considered an expansion of "weblog."

I'm changing the article text back to "weblog." I don't think we need extensive citation in the intro for the term's source, but I'll include a cite to an authoritative dictionary. It won't be the Online Etymological Dictionary, which is an amateur effort. John M Baker ( talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide some sort of citation for weblog springing to life before the phrase "web log". What are the alternative etymological roots of "weblog" other than the joining of "web" and "log"? - JeffJonez ( talk) 21:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You've edited the article so that it no longer reflects the well-documented origin of "blog" based on your conjecture that it derives from "web log," and you demand that I produce reliable sources to show that your speculation is wrong?

As it happens, this is all well-documented. The first use of "weblog" was by Jorn Barger on his Robot Wisdom web site on December 17, 1997. Barger used the spelling "WebLog," as you can see on the Wayback Machine, and his contribution is widely recognized, such as here. I don't think his role has ever really been questioned.

Subsequently, Peter Merholz wrote on Peterme.com, "I've decided to pronounce the word "weblog" as wee'- blog. Or "blog" for short." Again, note that the word is "weblog," no space. You can see an archive of his remark here. Merholz's role is widely recognized, see the references cited in the article.

But, you ask, what about your speculation that "weblog" is just a variant of "web log"? Well, if that were the case, then presumably people would have been using "web log" all over the place, and they weren't. If, for example, you look on Google Book Search for the period 12/1997 to 6/1999, there are no examples of "web log" in the blog sense, though there are 25 collocations that involve web log data, web log analysis programs, and the like. The full version would have been "World Wide Web log," and when people abbreviated it, they abbreviated it to "weblog."

Reliable sources are aware of and accept this reasoning. The most reliable sources for etymologies are authoritative dictionaries. Merriam-Webster, the leading American publisher of dictionaries, accepts that "blog" is short for "Weblog." Similarly, Houghton-Mifflin, which publishes The American Heritage Dictionary, accepts "weblog." Even the source you added, the Online Etymology Dictionary, derives it from "weblog," though that isn't really a reliable source, since it's just an amateur's web site. Webster's and American Heritage are edited by professional lexicographers. The suggestion by 16x9 that "dictionary likely isnt a good sources" is simply false; dictionaries generally are the best sources.

What about Safire's reference to "web log"? Looks like a mistake. If you go to Safire's actual article (your link is dead), he cites no sources that use "web log" as the spelling. Bear in mind that Safire, unlike the people who write dictionaries, is not a professional. He's just a writer who likes to cover this stuff, putting him in much the same role as the editor of the Online Etymology Dictionary. Under WP:RS, remember that reliable sources are only reliable if they are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and that, for academic topics, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. John M Baker ( talk) 04:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times link was fine before it was removed without good reason. I'm sorry if I'm rocking your world, but I have not seen a "scholarly" article on the origins of the word "blog". Until it's listed prominently in this article, assume good faith and keep an open mind.

Your single citation is hardly definitive, as we can have | dictionary battles to no end. I'll settle for nothing less than authoritative account of the word's origin and popular use, not some blogger being cute with pronunciation. If you find it, let me know. If I find it, I'll let you know. :) - JeffJonez ( talk) 12:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Blood's account has replaced that lackluster dictionary ref.) She went on to publish a book about web history in 2002, so her detailed history is more than a simple blog post. I suspect it will be harder to find references that acknowledge the simple truth that Jorn Barger's glorified typo consists of -- in its entirety -- two English words, but I'll keep looking. :) - JeffJonez ( talk) 12:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read Douglas Harper's bio. If that's an amateur, then I certainly aspire to amateurhood. Google also indicates that etymonline.com has been referenced by wikipedia.org 1,580 times. - JeffJonez ( talk) 12:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment that Harper is an amateur, and his work is therefore not entitled to the same presumption of reliability as that of a professional linguist or lexicographer, was not intended to be substantive criticism of him. Indeed, I think his work on this particular point is entirely accurate. John M Baker ( talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be two alternate histories for "blog". the BBC popularly credits Jorn Barger, but Peter Merholz's claim is backed up by Jargon Scout -- which sources the coinage two years later in 1999. I don't yet see a clear lineage of the word "blog". If Barger coined the word "blog", did Merholz simply help popularize it? Trying to authoritatively claim a clear lineage in the face of these conflicting accounts is hardly encyclopedic. - JeffJonez ( talk) 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Barger coined "weblog." Merholz coined "blog," which is an altered form of "weblog" and, I think, is now the more popular word. John M Baker ( talk) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that distiction, but I see that's in the article. I agree that "weblog" is an important waypoint into the evolution of the word "blog", but I'd also like to see an exploration of "weblog". I'm not sure where that leads. - JeffJonez ( talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a type of blog that is not mentioned here.

Character blogs

Character blogs are a type of blog written as though a fictional character, rather than an actual person, is making the blog post. There are many character blogs on the Internet, and it has recently become popular among TV show producers as a means of promoting their show. Sometimes these character blogs are done as a simple means of expression by fans or regular people unaffiliated with any professional media. In the current decade they have become an outlet for fans of TV show, movie, and comic book characters, to play with and interact with characters ranging from Star Wars and Star Trek to Superman, Spider-man and even solo characters created by the blogger themselves and placed in one of the many fictional universes found in fiction.

Types of Character Blogs

Official Character Blogs - Movies, TV shows and sometimes even brands (such as Captain Morgan) will publish an official blog a character. These are often produced with marketing and tie-ins in mind, and so are planned to best convey the message wanted by the the producers.

Unofficial Character Blogs - Sometimes fans of a known fictional character will create a blog as parody or homage to the work from which the character derives. Star Wars has brought about several of these, the most famous example being Master Yoda's Blog. Unofficial character blogs often are inspired by comic books, TV shows and movies.

Fantasy Character Blogs - Some blog writers choose to create their own original character to blog as. Often they will be some kind of superhero type character, rather than just an ordinary person. An element of fantasy often exists, putting the character into one or many fantasy universes, even mixing them with established fictional universes from comic books, movies and televisions. This is common among role-players, particularly within the Star Wars community, where they can create their own Jedi (or Sith) character and blog as them.

Blog Games

Character blogs make it possible for blog games to be played on team blogs. These are often in parody of reality TV shows. For instance, Last Gladiator Standing is a blog game that gets its name from Last Comic Standing and Amazing Mutant Race puts an X-Men twist on The Amazing Race. Captainkoma ( talk) 06:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The top of the article says "Blogger" redirects here. No it doesn't. 96.252.96.65 ( talk) 03:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose that:

Corporate blogs

A blog can be private, as in most cases, or it can be for business purposes. Blogs, either used internally to enhance the communication and culture in a corporation or externally for marketing, branding or public relations purposes are called corporate blog

should read

Corporate blogs

A blog can be private, as in most cases, or it can be for business purposes. Blogs, either used internally to enhance the communication and culture in a corporation (informally known as 'dark blogs') or externally for marketing, branding or public relations purposes are called corporate blogs. Johnalexwood ( talk) 10:09, 20 August 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.