Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Blogging (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
This project covers a type of webpage. Please see related discussions on websites at:
Wikipedia talk:Websites
Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Help this Project[edit]

Contribute to this project to keep it alive. Without help, it will be re-nominated for deletion. DakotaDAllen (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I am game. How do I get the ball rolling? 16x9 (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Revamping Wikiproject[edit]

Alright, ready to get started- where do we go from here? 12.40.50.1 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We need new members. Do you have an account? Join up and help to contribute. Computerjoe's talk 20:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Restarting Wikiproject Blogging thread[edit]

Good evening, folks, I'm Ks64q2 (talk), and, as you know, we're all here to get this project back underway. As noted in our page's intro:

Blogs have evolved dramatically in recent years and many have become central forums for public conversation, and even journalism. Vanity Blogs, which are purely an individual's personal pulpit may, in most cases, be easily excluded from an encyclopedic record, but open multi-user multi-threading forums are an entirely different case. These forums have become more a Public Square than has ever existed and will, as a class, only grow in significance. Even as a matter of simple historic record, the significant multi-user blogs of today will be items of interest for future research, and a concise record and history of them should be a part of a project like Wikipedia. The purpose of this WikiProject has two main parts. First, it seeks to expand the coverage of weblogs on Wikipedia to the point where it is the most comprehensive resource in existence on this emerging aspect of online and media culture. Second, it seeks to do so sanely, and with an eye towards making sure the coverage reflects what is important about blogs, and what is not a mess of vanity articles, self-promotion, and trivia.

We've got about a few people here, including myself, Computerjoe, 16x9, as well as others interested in helping (a couple of anonymous ones), we just have to get everyone wrangled up and get going. In the process of kicking this project back into gear, I have been going through and sorting unassessed blogging sites, trying to get a standard we can set in good sites, seeing where work needs to be done and where it doesn't, etc. I figured that was a good first step. We can also look at sites without any articles, too, and see about making them. What are your thoughts? Ks64q2 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

In the process of assessing, we need to get blogs that fail WP:WEB deleted. Computerjoe's talk 11:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with you mostly, but let's be careful there. We should, perhaps, make a standard to apply to blogs differently than other websites. Obviously, we need to set standards, and we need to stick to them, but as long as we're not okaying blatant vanity sites or self-promoting entries, as long as we can see encyclopediac value in the site, we should include it. For examples on this, see Websnark and Kinja, for two I dealt with most recently. Or, say, Fire Joe Morgan, which is a sports blog that was obviously notable, but has been shut down for quite some time. We should discuss those sorts of things and make a standard for their inclusion. Secondly, blogs have come into play as more notable sources; DailyKos, LittleGreenFootballs, The Huffington Post, Fark, are all scooped by the "major" media for stories, ideas, et cetera, and you could argue they have become parts of the media themselves. We should take that into account, as well. Thoughts? Ks64q2 (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see why WP:WEB can't apply. Major blogs are referenced in the media etc, like how WP:WEB requires. Computerjoe's talk 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, I'm not disagreeing with you there, but blogs themselves are becoming "traditional" media sources, which wasn't the case them WP:WEB was written. Just something I think we should take into account while doing this work. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's only significant insofar as whether we can consider blogs to be "non-trivial" sources about other blogs. Some will be, some won't be. I don't think the rules need to be relaxed so much as we need to raise awareness of the fact that blogs can be reliable sources. Not all of them are, and even the best of them will have some issues. But there's probably value in taking a second look at our policy on "blogs as sources". Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I doubt anyone would argue Technorati top 50 blogs are reliable sources, for example. But generally, blogs aren't as they're self-published and amateur made. Computerjoe's talk 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems like we're all in precise agreement on this issue; I echo Guettarda's statements in particular about taking a second look at blogs as sources. Ks64q2 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • May I suggest we first work to assess articles? Computerjoe's talk 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

I've just gone through Category:Blogs and tagged all pages needing tagging. Now, we must assess them! Computerjoe's talk 11:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Alright, let's get crackin' on assessing. Now, do we want to split up the list on the unassessed articles, or how do we want to split that? I say we give them an appropriate rating per our thoughts up to a "B" level, and then regroup on anything we deem above that or that might need deletion. Sound okay? I'm starting at the end of the alphabet and working my way upwards; one of you can take the beginning, if you like. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, and is there a way for us to check and see if people are changing our ratings after we've made them? If editors of the articles we look at object to something we do, no problem, but I'd like for them to discuss it with us first, and not have someone going through and uprating their blog. Thoughts? Ks64q2 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Hello, I'm new here and am mystified by much of the geektalk (but very grateful to geeks who understand how everything works *friendly smile* ). My area of interest in the burgeoning LitBlog (literary blog) and would like to suggest that if there is a category for sports blogs, then there should be one for book blogs, of which LitBlogs would be a sub-category? As I've signalled below in Notability, I'm working on some potential criteria for notability of LitBlogs, but in essence what makes them different from book blogs is that they are a serious contribution to literature with full length reviews and articles rather than blogs with chatty posts about popular fiction, reading challenges etc. LitBlogs are taking up the space being vacated by broadsheet newspapers, which are contracting the space they make available for book reviews. --ANZLitLovers (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles meriting above a "B" rating[edit]

Insert discussion here, remove this line when ready. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well GA, FA and FL are obvious (if they've been awarded them through the external processes). A-class criteria is outlined and at the moment, I suggest instead of making solid outlines we just seek a consensus before promoting an article to this class. Computerjoe's talk 10:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, that's what I meant, pasting articles deserving above a "B" rating here. We only currently have one, Soxaholic. Ks64q2 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for PROD[edit]

Tumblelog should be merged with micro-blogging rather than being deleted. Computerjoe's talk 10:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles created/to be created[edit]

  • Adding a series of articles on the Serious Eats family of blogs, found at www.seriouseats.com Ks64q2 (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:53, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

High importance[edit]

I seem to be giving a lot of articles high importance, whilst other editors may only give mid. May we agree on some criteria for determining what is highly important? Computerjoe's talk 10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Joe. I was looking at it versus it's relative importance on Wikipedia; sites that are particularly notable, or would serve us best under an encyclopediac standard, I've been flagging high, and sites (even if they need work) on relatively less important topics low. There are some sites, for instance, which are shut down, but would certainly be of use in an encyclopedia of knowledge; but I figure they're not going anywhere, right? Heh. What are your thoughts?Ks64q2 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
With regard to websites, I've been operating under a few modes. I've been checking Alexa and Technorati ranks (to check notability too) and whether or not I've heard of them. Some blogs are very important, in my opinion, like Boing Boing and should be tagged as such. I notice you've tagged Lifehacker.com as mid; whilst it is a massive blog I understand your point that it does not affect society in the same way as Boing Boing, for example. Computerjoe's talk 12:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Precisely, we're right on the same page. Ks64q2 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to formalise this whenever I get around to it. Computerjoe's talk 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding importance, bear in mind the general importance criteria

  • Top-Class - Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
  • High-Class - Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
  • Mid-Class - Subject fills in more minor details
  • Low-Class - Subject is mainly of specialist interest.

In my reading, Blog would be a top-class article. I'm not entirely sure what else. Things like major blogging tools (Blogger, Moveable Type, etc.) would be high class. Major blogs would be mid-class. And relatively minor (but still notable) blogs would be low-class. That seems to be in keeping with my experience elsewhere in terms of article assessment.

A high-class blog would have to be one that somehow shaped blogging, something that you'd need to know about if you wanted to know about blogging. Anything else, IMO, would only be mid-class. You need to bear in mind that low-class should probably be the largest category. Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks. I'm new to 1.0 assessment. We'll go through it and fix them, if that's okay with everyone else. Computerjoe's talk 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ditto with Joe, I agree. Go ahead and re-do any you see need doing; I don't think I've done any top class articles, but I agree with thagt assessment scale, and I've been pretty much following it except for, as noted, a few rated "high" that probably could have gone to "top". Ks64q2 (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO, some blogs are more notable than systems. For example, Boing Boing, TechCrunch and Huffington Post are all important. MovableType arguably isn't as important as them. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am here![edit]

What do I need to do to help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoodaddy! (talkcontribs) 16:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, we're assessing blogging articles per the above discussion. :) Computerjoe's talk 19:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential guidelines to keep in mind[edit]

Thanks to user SMarshall, I bring you an eloquent missive I believe we should all keep in mind going forward.

*I note that WP:N, WP:COI and WP:RS are guidelines, so none of these arguments are grounded in Wikipedia policy. A policy-based argument would therefore trump them. WP:V is policy. However, I find that it has been misapplied here. What WP:V actually says is "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source", and I think this article is extensively sourced and some of the sources the article now quotes are "reliable".

  • The following policies support "keep".
  1. Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to: rephrase; correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content; move text within an article or to another article (existing or new); add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced; request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag—policy.
  2. It is wonderful when someone adds a comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article to Wikipedia. This should always be encouraged—policy.
  3. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it—policy.
  • Also, I think it's a sin against the basic purpose of creating an encyclopaedia to remove well-sourced material, such as that contained in this article.

I thought it was well said! Just for our information. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Geekologie[edit]

Hey, I've been working on a article for [www.geekologie.com Geekologie] for a few months now. I created it initially as my first article around 6 months ago. Since then, I've come to udnerstand how Wikipedia works and have tried to write the article to satisfy notability critera. As I'm sure you know, there's no guidelines for inclusion for blogs specifically so all I have to go on is, "has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As of right now, It has recieved coverage by the BBC and G4TV. I'd appreciate any input you could provide so that I can try to show the notability of this subject so that it may be moved to mainspace. Also, if you think it's notable already, let me know. Thanks for your time. Here's the article: Geekologie. OlYellerTalktome 04:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a reader :) I personally think the blog probably reaches the guidelines. Especially the Click coverage. However, some more reliable sources would really help. AfD doesn't look kindly on blogs being used as these. A traffic rank of <7000 seems decent, especially as it has a technorati top 100 rank. Computerjoe's talk 15:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ya, I personally thinks it's notable too. I'm pretty deep into the tech blog community and I know that Geekologie is notable but proving that with Wikipedia policies/guidelines is difficult. I'm waiting on one more, full coverage, article to come out by a reliable source and I'm posting it.
Also, it looks like someone created an article in the last 2 days and it was quickly deleted. I hope that no one copied the code I put together and posted it as it will make it harder for the article later on (people will reference how similar the code is and nominate it for deletion based on that fact). OlYellerTalktome 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Was it speedied? You could take it to DRV and see the consensus?Computerjoe's talk 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've posted it on DRV. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 26. This isn't lobbying, just mentioning it so all parties know. Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability (blogs)[edit]

As I've worked with a few of the more notable blogs and their article on Wikipedia, I've noticed a problem. The problem exists with all types of mediums that present "news" in any type or form. Since there is no notability guideline/policy for news organizations or blogs (I acknowledge that they are very different), the only guideline for notability that editors can use is the litmus test for notability; "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Since most of these organizations aren't written about themselves, only using this inclusion criteria for a guideline is inherently flawed. As with all other guidelines for inclusion, blogs and news organizations should have additions criteria listed to specify their notability.

If this Wikipedia project wants to have something to really work on, I suggest that the first step should be to create a new notability guideline for blogs and/or news organizations.

As of right now, the only other criteria I see that could relate to blogs or news organizations is WP:WEB. The only point that would really relate to a blog being notable is point 3: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." I interpret this as saying that a blog is notable if the stories it publishes are widely syndicated with the expect for being vaguely about blogs that are not notable.OlYellerTalktome 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I am currently designing some potential criteria for litblogs (as distinct from book blogs) and am aimimg to post them here for discussion soon.--ANZLitLovers (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notice[edit]

you might be interested in this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog 16x9 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If you ignore people like this they will go away...it's not rocket science.[edit]

Hilton is a nasty attention whore. All articles like this do is feed his ego. Nobody likes people who are so in your face and crude. They feed on the drama and ignoring them is the only thing that will make them fade away. Remove this article for the children ;) 62.121.98.15 11:28, April 30 2009 (UTC)

??? OlYellerTalktome 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging[edit]

Category:Bloggers and its sub categories must be tagged. Unfortunately I'm on a Mac so AWB is difficult. Any volunteers? Computerjoe's talk 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to volunteer. I'm new to being a Wikipedian, and my zeal to contribute is matched by my bewilderment at how many help articles I have to read to get a grip. Point me to the articles I will need for an orientation, or explain to me how or what needs to happen to Tag articles for this project, and I'll get rockin' and rolling on it J.C. Martinez-Sifre (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing[edit]

Should we ask to become a descendent of this wikiproject? Most other internet related projects are. Computerjoe's talk 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Or a child wikiproject? Computerjoe's talk 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Twitter[edit]

I have also posted this message at WikiProjects Internet and Internet culture.

In an attempt to get Twitter to Featured article status, it has been suggested to me that the article gets an independent copyedit check from an editor who isn't involved. As a Top-importance article in your WikiProject, I wondered if some of you would be willing to read the article through and correct any copyedit errors you come across. Thank you! Greg Tyler (tc) 16:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to give it a quick check next week, but I am not a copyeditor by any means. I doubt any of us are, as we're a small project. Well done with the article, by the way! Computerjoe's talk 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Any extra pair of eyes is a good pair! I thought this project was most relevant to the article and came here first but, due to your size, figured it would be a good idea to ask the bigger projects for their help too. But thank you for taking the time, any input would be excellent! Greg Tyler (tc) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


<a href=" http://www.enjoygolds.com/">tibia gold</a> [url= http://www.gamegoldmoney.com/tibia.htm]tibia gold[/url] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.96.175.159 (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Very Pleased[edit]

I'm very pleased to see that Wikipedia users have been able to step in and save this project, though I was inconsistent due to personal commitments. I would be pleased to once again take part in this project. DakotaDAllen (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do help us out. If we could get all articles assessed that'd be great, then we can work to get our top importance articles up to GA. Computerjoe's talk 12:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Among other things, I added a to-do list to the talk page to organize goals and what not. DakotaDAllen (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.gamegoldcoin.com

Sys-Con[edit]

The reliability of Sys-Con as a source is being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sys-Con. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC) http://www.gamezmoney.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.96.175.159 (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Blog Action Day[edit]

I couldn't believe that there was no article for this event yet. So I started a stub. --seav (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people[edit]

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fark[edit]

This article has been a GA since September 2009. I think it's getting close to FA? Does anyone want to take a look and see what needs to be done to bring it up to FA standards? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexa as a reliable source[edit]

A discussion is underway here.[1] ScottyBerg (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Requested[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the Contents: o 4.4 Special Appereance ... should read "Special Appearance"

Cheers! Causinski (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: page is not protected. SpigotMap 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Blogging articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Blogging articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RopeofSilicon[edit]

Does the aforementioned Does Rope of Silicon warrant an article? Feedback 01:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help with proposed edit of Little Green Footballs blog entry[edit]

For backstory, please see the talk thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Little_Green_Footballs

Basically, there was a bit of an edit war. After that, I noticed that the entry for LGF was not very well-organized and was rather out-of-date. I've attempted a rewrite to bring the entry more in line with those for other blogs. As this is my first attempt at a Wiki entry, I'm asking for any and all editing and criticism from experienced members. My only request is that you be as explicit as you can be so that I can learn from my mistakes.

Here's my proposed edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Obdicut/Little_Green_Footballs

Full disclosure: I'm a member of LGF and post there regularly. I've attempted as neutral as possible a tone.

Thanks much Obdicut (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How notable are the Wizbang Weblog Awards?[edit]

I wrote an article about Singaporean blogger Xiaxue, that I aim to make my seventh GA. An editor who copyedited the article (to prepare it for its GA nomination) questioned the notability of the Wizbang Weblog Awards and the inclusion of a sentence that Xiaxue had won said award. Since the copyeditor and I are not experts on blogging communities, we would appreciate your input in the discussion. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Xiaxue[edit]

Members of WikiProject Blogging, I humbly present to you an article about Xiaxue, a highly successful, but also highly controversial, Singaporean celebrity blogger! I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. If so, could you please comment at the ongoing peer review of the article, to support its quest to become the WikiProject's eight GA? Thank you very much! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Meta-Notability[edit]

I see a meta-type problem with the notability criterion. If the criterion is "mention in (inter)national news", then what counts as a notable enough news source? If a blog is mentioned by news blogs in more than one country, that meets the notability criterion. Or does it, because the mentioners are themselves blogs ... and so on. Crasshopper (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Overhaul Blogosphere[edit]

As part of a project for our Online Communities class at Cornell University, we would like to expand the article “Blogosphere,” detailing the history and proliferation of this community. The current Wikipedia article only contains a very brief history, and a small paragraph on tracking. We would like to expand on this history, including the basic origins of the blog (with link to the article of “blogs”) and the divergence between the individual blog and the network of blogs that developed. We will add a section detailing the “explosion” of the blogosphere (i.e. the period from 2003 to 2006, when the number of blogs had doubled every six months). In the next section, we will discuss how blogs have become interconnected through links between blogs and how these networks became a source of information (whether credible or not) on various subjects (from politics and fashion to sports and cooking). We will examine in greater depth the relationship of the blogosphere to media outlets, such as newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news. Finally, we will provide a list, with links, of prominent bloggers, blogs and blogging niches, as well as a discussion on how blogs can be differentiated from other online communities. We have been collecting a wealth of scholarly research and are really excited about this endeavor.

Please let us know what you think!

-Jlg5390 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that you put this notice on the talk page of the article itself, but I see you already did that. Comment posted over there. By the way, how long is your project intended to run? Through Fall semester?
J.C. Martinez-Sifre (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Art of Non-Conformity[edit]

I started a page on Chris Guillebeau from the Art of Non-Conformity blog. Any help would be appreciated.

Project to help WikiProject Blogging[edit]

I am teaching a freshman comp class next semester which will focus on blogs and blogging. We will be reading the book Ultimate Blogs and I have been trying to develop a way for my students to do "something" with the book. I'm very much interested in having them contribute to this project by creating articles on some of the blogs included in the book. What are group members' thoughts on this? Tsasser (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability (web) criterion three[edit]

A discussion has been underway for a couple of weeks about criterion three of WP:WEB, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". The debate is about whether or not this criterion is necessary, and if the guideline is changed it could affect AfD discussions on webcomics, flash games, and other online content. Editors are warmly invited to take a look and leave their opinions. The discussion thread can be found here. — Mr. Stradivarius 03:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Random College Student[edit]

Hello, I have enjoyed your page but have noticed that the owner of Failblog and it's affiliates, Ben Huh, is hardly mentioned. Perhaps a bit more than a comment by Huh would suffice for a better understanding of Ben instead of making it appear as being a commenter of failblog on the page. I am primarily posting this for a class, but the information itself I believe should come more to light about the owner and a bit more of the history of ownership and growth. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethispoozu (talkcontribs) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian topic ban proposal[edit]

A topic ban proposal is being discussed here regarding the Anita Sarkeesian. Input from uninvolved project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

can you add this blog? Salil's bio is on the blog

http://statisticalideas.blogspot.com/

please add this blog. Salil's bio is on the blog

http://statisticalideas.blogspot.com/

Lav Basant[edit]

File:Lav basant
file:///C:/Users/graphics/Downloads/lav.jpg


hi i am lav basant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavikarn (talkcontribs) 06:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy (2nd nomination)[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy (2nd nomination). Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gawker editor-in-chief[edit]

Hello WikiProject Blogging! I started an article on the Gawker editor-in-chief Max Read but it could do with some refining. Feel free to improve!--DrWho42 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Category for discussion[edit]

I believe, for many LGBT YouTubers, especially those who have found fame or increase fame through a coming out video, being an LGBT YouTuber is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category. However, a user has nominated the category LGBT YouTubers for deletion. [see the discussion here] AusLondonder (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)