Talk:Blogosphere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.


This article was nominated for deletion on 141105. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.
Citation
This page was cited by Texas Law Review


INCLUSIONISM! Lotsofissues 06:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Neologism, solecism

  • I don't know about deletion, I hear this term quite a bit. The article could use some going-over, though; a lot of this probably belongs in the main weblog entry. At least the history of the term is useful information. --Pollen 10:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Contents

[edit] VfD Archived debate

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 29 to May 6 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

The article strikes me as gibberish (mythology?), and wikipedia is not a dictionary or a glossary of slang anyway. Non-notable. Delete. Falcon 01:43, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Pretty sure I've heard this term before, and blogs are a very important cultural phenomenon circa 2004. Everyking 02:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not gibberish, it's just not very well written. The blogosphere refers to the interconnected world of weblogs - it's both a real phenomenon and a commonly-used term. Weblog says a bit about the types of blogs, but it doesn't really discuss the culture and interaction between blogs, nor should it — there's already plenty to cover there. There's definitely room for a good article on the blogosphere, this just isn't it yet. I improved a bit, but more work is needed. Isomorphic 02:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've never really heard of "warblogs" and "techblogs" or whatever, but blogosphere itself is certainly a word, and an encyclopedic concept at that. Meelar 02:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Warblog is definitely a common term (I know it despite not being a blogger,) and I think technoblog is too. Isomorphic 03:16, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real term, and fairly common among the more voiciferous bloggers. -Sean 02:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real, emergent phenomenon. Interconnectedness, you know? DS 03:12, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is quite out of date though, maybe I'll do something about that.--Samuel J. Howard 12:49, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This become a standard word faster than "e-mail" did. Alcarillo 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Decumanus | Talk 04:22, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Partial merge (of whatever is verifiable) with Weblog and redirect. anthony (see warning)
  • Keep - its good information.

The problem is not the term but the article itself. It's factually incorrect. See this paper http://www.blogninja.com/hicss05.blogconv.pdf

End discussion

[edit] Image

I've removed the image on the right from the main page, in it's current state it's just confusing. If it's relevant to the article, please put it back while specifying what it's suppose to represent, labeling the axes, etc. --fvw* 01:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

I went back and forth on inclusion. I think not having it at this time is probably better. Stirling Newberry 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Like any other biological system, the blogosphere demonstrates all the classic ecological patterns: predators and prey, evolution and emergence, natural selection and adaptation. The number of links obtained by a blog, is frequently related to the quality and quantity of information presented by that blog. That means, the most popular blogs have the highest link level, the worst blogs have the lowest link level. The blog ecosystem has its own selection and adaptation mechanism. The good tends to become better, the bad tends to disappear."

This is opinion, not fact.

provide evidence, then make solid, correct changes in the wikipedia tradition or go away. --Buridan 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


so the 'wikipedia tradition' is snyde, self-important hostility? Get a grip.

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reversion...

I recently added a small amount of text describing the popular backlash against the word blogosphere, corroborated even by the paragraph pertaining to Maddox in this very same article. Ipsenaut 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, sorry about that. that must have slipped in while i was traveling. it fails the neutrality test, and is opinion/humor, personal reference. it has been removed also Buridan---

This article is about a fast changing phenomena. That becomes more known and close to readers. If you keep this page frozen, it wil become more outdated every day.

A new, or updated article should be written At least, put a date on this piece of hisotry.

Henk Daalder, contributor to the dutch version of Wikipedia

outdated perhaps, false or non-neutral... no. however, there has been a ton of changes over the last year.--Buridan 11:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)



I deleted a link to a very poorly written rant titled "Article on whether the blogosphere is overrated". The author is probably right about the blogosphere being overrated but it is rubbish. If you want to check and possibly reinstate it click here: http://www.slimindustries.com/blogorated/

- Jez

[edit] links

the links that exist on this page are the links that we've left exist on the page, we have culled many links and these exist by the consensus of the people that work on this concept. If you want them included differently, then write it up. don't cut them because you have a 'visions' of how you think a wikipedia article should be. --Buridan 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to convert them to an internal section, but half of them are redlinks. I also ran seraches to see if any of them existed under other names without success. Are those that are red important enough for their own articles, or only minor players? I'll leave off making the change for the moment, but this is what I attempted:

[edit] Important Blogosphere sites


I had it in the article preview as a level 2 section, but I've demoted it to level three to maintain sectioning in talk. Creating articles for those that are important enough and trimming out those that are not would make the article better and improve the projects coverage. --GraemeL (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Not every link in wikipedia needs to be an internal link either, it is fine having these as external links. there is no reason not to do so. I do agree though that the ones with internal pages can be linked internally. --Buridan 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove all of those sites from external links and create the section with a mixture of blue links and external links. --GraemeL (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking

The tracking section seemed to be an odd place for a definition of what blogs are, as well as a place to talk about Forbes' coverage of marketing via blogs. I condenses the section to talk about tracking of conversations/memes, and aids for scholars who want to research flow of conversation. If we want a larger discussion of how the blogosphere might also be a "sphere" for marketing, such language needs to be re-worked. --mtz206 16:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April 20 edit

I removed this phrase: "A network of blogs, then, becomes a living, constantly evolving and updating network of knowledge." This seems like puffery, and not very encyclopedic. There is nothing inherently "living" or "evolving" about the blogosphere. It is a network of dynamically-linked sites, not some mystical organ of knowledge. --mtz206 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portmanteau?

This was in Category:Computing portmanteaus, but I'm pretty sure "blogosphere" doesn't qualify as a portmanteau. It's just "blog" with a suffix on it. ~ Booya Bazooka 08:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)