Talk:Video journalism

Revert war over these two paragraphs

Somebody please explain here, for the benefit of passers-by, just what is wrong with these two paragraphs:

Growth in video journalism coincides with changes in video technology and the cost of this technology. As broadcast quality cameras and editing systems have become smaller and available at a fraction of their previous costs, the single operator method has spread.

...

The BBC has invested heavily in this form of journalism with more than 600 of its staff trained as video journalists as of June 2005. The BBC is currently considering the results of an entirely video journalistic driven pilot news service, which if successful will be rolled out across the UK.[1]

I've reformatted the reference for the talk page, but otherwise, those are precisely the two paragraphs that have been removed from the article and re-added an embarassing number of times with nobody involved explaining themseves here. Let's hash it out - what is Mister-jones/216.80.64.206's reason for removing the cited material in the second paragraph, and what is Mackan and CloudNine's reason for re-inserting the uncited material in the first? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following paragraph:

Growth in video journalism coincides with changes in video technology and the cost of this technology. As broadcast quality cameras and editing systems have become smaller and available at a fraction of their previous costs, the single operator method has spread.

... because this is an incredibly inaccurate, uncited matter of opinion. I personally work in the broadcast industry -- and yes, I am well aware how easy it is to make that claim. I can tell you that this claim is simply not true. This paragraph has a multitude of problems on a professional broadcaster level, and is much easier to simply remove altogether than hash out yet another debate about the "video journalism" method.

Further, I removed:

The BBC has invested heavily in this form of journalism with more than 600 of its staff trained as video journalists as of June 2005. The BBC is currently considering the results of an entirely video journalistic driven pilot news service, which if successful will be rolled out across the UK.[2]

... for the following reasons:

1. The cited source does not claim BBC has "invested heavily" in this form of journalism.

2. The cited source does not claim BBC is considering an "entirely video journalism driven" news service.

3. The cited source does not give any hints as to what BBC's future plans are for the video journalism method.

The cited source at the end of that paragraph is nothing more than a press release for an event hosted by BBC's now-defunct Video Journalism Centre. It's been renamed SON&R Newcastle. I found that information by checking the sources with a simple Google search. I have edited the ill-concieved paragraph to match. Mister-jones 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because of the previous consensus for the other version (as reached on Cloudnine's talkpage? or somewhere), although I agree the BBC part should be changed somewhat, unless more sources are provided (I will do a google search for more). The part you claim is not true may be unsourced but it's almost pathologically true, although I don't think it will be too hard to find a source which supports the statement. Mackan 07:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits for the reasons listed above in my previous entry.

Take a look at the bottom of the edit box. "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." Go ahead and click that link for a better explanation, but here's what's in the first paragraph:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

1. A "consensus" is not a reliable source.

2. "Pathologically true" is not a reliable source.

Sorry, but not only is your opinion incorrect, but your revert simply does not follow required criteria.

24.148.16.125 00:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use your account when you're editing, Mrjones. I reverted your edit because you removed a reference as well as the text you disliked. As I said, I'll see if I can find a source. Mackan 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's kind of ironic that you would preach to me about Wikipedia rules, considering your record of vandalism. Not only have you blanked this article 3 times ([3]), you've also blanked my userpage a bunch of times (albeit from a different IP). Mackan 10:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Once again, my list of edits (pay close attention, because I don't want you crying about how these edits are incorrect):

1. Removed "broadcast quality" from the second paragraph, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the attributed article.

2. Removed "heavily" from the third paragraph, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the attributed article.

3. Removed "New York 1" from the fourth paragraph, because NY1 abandoned video journalism.

Further, I only deleted your user page once. Ironically enough, I've seen you annoying other users in other articles. I've seen your history as well. Maybe you should consider who else you're annoying in the Wikipedia realm instead of simply blaming me?

I find it hilarious that you'd think I'd waste time with another IP. Sorry, kid, but I've better things to do than sit here and watch you edit a Wikipedia entry over and over again with "reliable sources." Hell, one of them is a press release.

I hope you're not going into journalism. You've got a long, hard road ahead of you if you can't even tell the difference between actual, concrete proof and public relations fluff.

It'll be even longer if you think Wikipedia is a reliable source. This entire site is a joke. "Anyone can post anything on the internet." I can get fifty people in here by this afternoon to tell you how incredibly wrong you are, and according to the "rule of consensus" you keep bringing up, you'd be slammed to find anyone who disagrees with us.

As a matter of fact, I could get those same fifty people to tell you what an incredible idiot you are for actually pulling in a press release as reliable information, and pulling out information that doesn't even exist in the press release.

Have fun editing your little article, son.

Mister-jones 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly advice, I'll consider it. I do not think I have "kept bringing" the rule of consensus up, but the two times I did, I made it obvious my intent was to include reliable sources to support the statements, which I've now done. I put "heavily" back, 600 people is no small potatoes even for the BBC. I put NY1 back too, if they have abandonded it (which I don't have any particular reason not to trust), please provide a source stating so. I also put "broadcast quality" back, because if the cameras aren't "broadcast quality", how the hell is anybody meant to use them for VJ purposes? Mackan 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again:

1. Removed "broadcast quality" from the second paragraph, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the attributed article. Adding it back in because "how the hell is anybody meant to use them for VJ purposes" is an assumption, not a reliable source. Video journalism relies on cheaper, consumer equipment ("consumer," as in, "non-professional") is one of the main debate points of video journalism. You should do more research if you're going to attempt to "debate" what belongs and what doesn't. Laughable.

2. Removed "heavily" from the third paragraph, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the attributed article. The use of "heavily" as "no small potatoes" does not change the fact that it isn't said in the article, it's a matter of opinion. Once again, opinion is not a reliable source.

3. Removed "New York 1" from the fourth paragraph, because NY1 abandoned video journalism. Wether or not the article "exists" on the internet is not a factor: the fact remains that NY1 is no longer using video journalism in its outlet.