Jump to content

Talk:Blogging in New Zealand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

This article is not a dumping ground for blog links within New Zealand. Any link which does not build to this article, or that is not an appropiate link, will be removed. Please, place your reasons on this page before adding links in. --Midnighttonight 09:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only blog I can think of right now is the Young Nats one, is that notable? Brian | (Talk) 10:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Young Nats blog is not notable. It isn't even a blog per se, it is just a temporary means of posting material whilst out new website is being constructed. 124.197.4.101 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense Brian | (Talk) 00:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the above advice as an edit notice for the article.-gadfium 05:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum ranking?

[edit]

Perhaps a minimum ranking on one of the bigger blog indexes might act as a baseline for inclusion? eg. a ranking of Flippery Fish or higher over at Truth Laid Bear? --noizyboy 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be an idea. A blog needs to prove its worth. Also Tumeke has a worked out blogocracy. --Midnighttonight 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed broken link. JLL 09:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum ranking is a good idea. Propose we use Google advance search at peak to determine site traffic. According to Google advanced search there are currently 286,000 Blogsites that originate from New Zealand and identify themselves by using the word blog on their homepage. It's not perfect, but this would be a far better way to determine the amount of blogs that originate from New Zealand and their ranking as Kiwiology and Open Parachute relies on data input. There will be some notable blogs that don't show. Blogs that are inactive for a year should be removed from article unless there's some historical importance. Topics that rate high such as art, environment, fashion, financial, personal, political, science and technology blogs should have their own categories. JLL 09:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for inclusion

[edit]

Political blogs

Various

JLL 07:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain, for each of the blogs you have listed above, why you consider it to be notable. Also, I suggest you remove those which are already listed in the article.-gadfium 08:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these blogsites are often referenced in non trivial publications. Some have their work re-published in reputable and independent sources. Some are affiliated with political blogs already listed. Some are political blogs of current or former MP's. Some are collectives that have high ratings. I believe all of these blogsites meet Wikipedias notability criteria. *JLL 09:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for comment at the New Zealand Wikipedians noticeboard. I hope you will get some feedback soon.-gadfium 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added a few more blogs that could be included. JLL 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy or another soapbox?

[edit]

I'm not fully convinced of the merit of this; Rodney Hide already has his own article, and as a leader of a somewhat notable party he should. Other bloggers seem... less noteworthy to say the least. I'm open to being convinced though. -- Greaser 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the bloggers themselves are not particularly notable, the blog scene is, and they are a part of that. I would object to there being a David Farrar or Jordan Carter article. But, as a whole, there is enough notability in the blogosphere itself. --Midnighttonight 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The David Farrar article is a different David Farrar BTW--Midnighttonight 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The influence of blogs is growing, although I suspect the general public doesn't realise it. Take the case where No Right Turn raised the absence of Rodney Hide: over the next couple of days, journalists were running stories about his absence from Parliament; this was after a couple of weeks of Dancing with the Stars... --Lholden 01:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the only noteworthy blogs are political? (being Devil's advocate...) 202.180.71.156 08:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no one has written on the other blogs yet. Feel free to do so, but make sure they are notable otherwise.... --Midnighttonight please tell me off for procrastinating on my essay! 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the links here appear to be linkspam. For exmaple, external links to three particular politician blogs - what is special about these? Are they the only politicians with blogs? In general, perhaps external links here should only be to sites about the blogosphere, not to blogs themselves. --Pakaraki (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The New Zealand blogosphere is about bloggers. Referencing bloggers is required to show relevance. Wikipedias criteria for referencing is not the same as their criteria for notability. *JLL 07:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into political blog

[edit]

Following discussion on Political blog, the Political blogs in Australia has been merged into Political blog. This article is almost entirely about political matters and I invite editors to consider agreeing to merge this in, likewise, where it would fit nicely. TerriersFan 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that political blogs in Australia had all the links to blogs removed as linkspam, and ended up as two paragraphs in Political blog. I would oppose a similar merger of this article. Instead, I'd like to see it expanded to cover more than just the political blogs it currently deals with. As I'm not a reader of NZ blogs, I have no expertise in the area to do so myself.-gadfium 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I only really know of the political blog scene in New Zealand, but this article is meant to be about more than just them. It should cover all the other blogs in New Zealand. I just don't know enough about them to write anything on it. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 22:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Some of the blog sites listed and many notable New Zealand blogsites that should be here are not political. A merge into Political blog will mean many will need to be deleted. Political blog should be a category listed in New Zealand blogosphere. JLL 06:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, I can see the advantage of a non-political blogs article. However, the benefit of merging the political blogs section in is that the general principles in the opening paras of Political blog will apply to all countries, with any aditional NZ dimensions, and there is easy comparison of the blog activities of the various countries. TerriersFan 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily copy it into the Political Blog section, or do the following:

New Zealand

[edit]
Main article: New Zealand blogosphere

The New Zealand political blogs consistent blah blah blah

How bout that then?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Farrar (blogger)

[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Farrar (blogger) --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 23:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jackal (blogsite)

[edit]

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jackal (blogsite) *JLL 07:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Bloggers

[edit]

Glad to see this has been created. It would be great if the bloggers who have been on the scene since it emerged - like Farrar, Carter, and whoever else could each write their own perspective on the emergence of the NZ blogosphere, and then we try and synthesise it here at Wikipedia...User:A.J.Chesswas 16:57, 8 August 2006 (NZT)

Who has the time to write outside of their blogs? Also the sentence "The story had first been broken on The Standard,[14] a blog with links to the Labour Party.[4]" is inaccurate about the links to the Labour party. I'm accurately referred to in the link as being a member of the NZLP (like many political bloggers including many mentioned, I pay subs to a party). However most of the 12 or so active authors are not, and that has been the case since the site started in august 2007. The site is a leftish site more aligned to the labour movement than the Labour party What the inaccurate article in the link is probably referring to is that we were inadvertently on a server donated to the NZLP and admined by an activist mate for 3 weeks at the start of 2008. We moved off that system after we discovered it's origin because the feeling amongst the authors is that we didn't want to beholden to any political party. Lprent (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm no expert on blogs and what is notable, but http://artemis.utdc.vuw.ac.nz:8000/pebble/ just got linked from Slashdot as an excellent series of posts on the amendments to the NZ Copyright Act currently going through parliament. Is it worth including in this article?-gadfium 07:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, being Slashdotted is fairly notable these days. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 21:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Link.... "Some bloggers, such as Russell Brown" Leads to the wrong Russel Brown! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.132.250 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed.-gadfium 18:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future sources

[edit]

Don't have time to update the article at the moment, but this article could be a useful source Lossenelin (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Herald

[edit]

I suggest that Editing the Herald is an interesting blog which might be mentioned in the article. I have no idea how widely read it may be, but it has had 175 posts since it was started near the beginning of the year, and I find the analysis of the Herald's stories insightful.-gadfium 20:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no feedback, I'll add this to the page.-gadfium 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Blogging in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blogging in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blogging_in_New_Zealand&oldid=1200191360"