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.

I reverted your edits. You are nit-picking, and it's not the fact that every single word used in this article MUST be in the referred article. And about NY1, you have to present a source. I've been co-operative and I've found sources for everything I've written/put back into the article, is it wrong for me to expect the same effort being made by you? Mackan 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I've left the New York 1 reference in the article, even though it's incorrect. I have appropriately removed the following two pieces of misinformation:

1. Removed "broadcast quality" from the second paragraph, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the attributed article. Claiming these "cheaper cameras" are "broadcast quality" when the article does not say anything about broadcast quality cameras is an assumption and/or embellishment.

2. Removed "heavily" from the third paragraph, because it's not mentioned anywhere in the attributed article. Again, claiming the BBC invested "heavily" is an assumption and/or embellishment. Further, the cited material is a press release. Most information in press releases should be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't care if you think it's nit-picking or not: you cannot claim what simply does not exist in the article. I'm wondering why you feel the need to "fluff" this entry? That's all you're doing.

Mister-jones 22:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you feel the need to keep on deleting as much as you can of this article? You even blanked it three times, what's that supposed to mean? Mackan 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Mr. Jones. Adding "heavily" and "broadcast quality" fluffs the entry, is not included in the original article, and thusly, has no place in the definition. Being as how you're interested in "consensus," that's consensus enough. He's also correct about new york 1. Further, why are you using a press release as a so-called viable, informative source? Just because it's on the internet?

Wow, at last -- a voice of reason. Thanks.

Mackan, how is deleting three words "as much as possible?" I deleted those entries (which were reverted and, in turn, deleted by someone else) because they do not exist in the referenced articles. I blanked it once, and that was over two months ago. I don't understand what relevance that holds.

Besides, don't you find it a little unusual that you're preaching rules to me when you can't even keep them straight yourself? I'm the one following the rules. I'm editing information to closer match their sources. You, on the other hand, are constantly editing the article in an effort to fluff up what the sources are actually saying.

Mister-jones 01:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user who has only edited this article. Yeah, that's not suspicious the least. No, Mister-jones, you aren't following rules, you are a sockpuppeteering, personal attacking, userpage and article-blanking bore. Mackan 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have better things to do on the afternoon of Easter Sunday. If you continue vandalizing this article with unreferenced misinformation, I'll start reporting you.

Mister-jones 12:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, you continue embellishing this article with information that simply IS NOT TRUE. I have once again edited the misinformation accordingly, which includes removal of aforementioned "reference." The so-called "reference" you have listed is not a knowledgeable subject. This is, in fact, a PR segment of a website marketing a service: it is not a reliable source.

Further, your continued vandalizing of this article is pitiful. Are you that dense that you don't understand how "two little words" can change an entire meaning?

I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time understanding this topic. I suggest you move on to subjects you are a little more knowledgeable about. Perhaps you should teach yourself the difference between reliable and unreliable sources? Or what about actually reading and understanding what it is you're looking at?

Mister-jones 04:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference is a PR segment, yes, and therefore I would definately not use it to quote anything even the least controversial, but I can see no motive for them to lie about such a basic fact - that the cameras they use are of broadcast quality. Mister-jones, you have on several occasions been asked to be civil, why is that so hard for you? Mackan 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as such. Here's the part where you claim that, of the two of us, you're the one being civil. That way, when someone else comes across the entry, they see you (falsely) trying to take the higher road instead of knowing what's actually going on here. Nevermind the fact that you started it all by dropping the f-bomb a few times. You're someone that definitely should not be speaking about "civility."

Second, you just shot down your own argument. It's a PR article selling a service, period. PR articles are not reliable sources. If you do a little research on the man behind the article, you'll see why he's a scetchy character to begin with. However, I don't think you researched enough. Therefore, I'm removing the reference and those "two little words" again.

What made me giggle is when you called it "such a basic fact." I've been trying to pound that into your head over and over and over again: they are not talking about broadcast quality cameras. Of the two articles you've referenced in a feeble attempt to get that so-called "fact" stuck in there, one is a PR scheme and the other doesn't even say anything about "broadcast quality."

So, once again, please stop editing this article by means of improper references and untrue wording. You are embellishing the article and distracting from its true meaning.

Mister-jones 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Working together

Mackan and Mister-jones, you've both left messages on my user page asking me to warn the other, regarding this article. I'm sorry I've been slow to respond - I have many commitments offline, and haven't given Wikipedia much time lately.

You guys are both interested in this article: that's excellent. That means you can work together to make it better, but you have to work together. It's not optional. Working together means keeping things professional and courteous. It means talking to people in a way that you'd be comfortable talking to your boss, or to a cop, or.... whoever you respect. When you don't respect, act as if you do.

I see above, "you are a sockpuppeteering, personal attacking, userpage and article-blanking bore," and, "your continued vandalizing of this article is pitiful." It's impossible to work with someone if you're insulting each other. Step 1 to fixing the article is dropping the personal stuff.

You may both consider yourselves warned regarding personal attacks. Mister-jones, you've been warned before, and you say you've "started taking Wiki more seriously". That's excellent; if you want to show it, you've got to stop being rude. You've got to stop calling others' edits "vandalism" (read the definition behind that link). You've got to stop making disparaging remarks about others' intelligence. Otherwise, you'll end up blocked from editing, and that makes improving the article very difficult. Cause and effect. You're about two rude remarks away from an effect right now. Don't step closer.

Mackan, I don't know anything about video journalism, and I haven't really got the time to get involved in the actual content dispute here. I'll tell you my strategy for dealing with this type of conflict. The first and only step is to get more eyes involved. Do an article RfC. Request a third opinion. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism and ask people to come have a look. Do all of those, really. It pretty much always helps.

Mister-jones, if Mackan doesn't beat you to it, you should do those things, too. It's how you deal with disputes here.

Also, both of you, this is the hard part, but it's the best way to "win" at Wikipedia: when you want to tell the other guy just what you think of him, go ahead and type it all up, hit "preview", read it, get some satisfaction out of that.... and then don't hit "save". Be the guy who's above ad hominem arguments. Even from a totally evil Machiavellian viewpoint, it gets people on your side, because it gives you the high ground. Take it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted on "third opinion". Mackan 13:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Okay, here are my opinions. One or both of you aren't going to like it.

• Cited sources should never be embellished. If a source says the BBC invested in something, don't cite it as saying the BBC invested "heavily". That's a misrepresentation of the source.
• Personal expertise shouldn't be used to add new information to an article (adding information requires verifiable sources). However, personal expertise can legitimately be used to delete information, correct factual errors, or discount the value of certain sources such as press releases. For example, my own area of expertise is stealth technology. Much information is classified and can't be stated openly. On occasion, I draw on my expertise to delete or modify statements that I know firsthand are untrue. The same applies here; if one editor has firsthand knowledge that broadcast-quality equipment isn't always used, it's fair to disregard sources that claim otherwise. And anyway, in my reading of the article, the presence of absence of the word "broadcast" makes no difference to the overall quality of the article.
• My recommendations: Delete the words "heavily" and "broadcast." You can leave in the word "quality"; it makes sense in the context of the sentence. -Amatulic 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to share your opinions. I hope you will take the time to read my reply and respond to it, as well.

I agree that sources shouldn't be embellished - that's not exactly the way it happened though. The "BBC" passage in question was first unsourced, written by somebody completely unrelated to this debate. Then came Mister-jones and deleted it, quoting "friends from BBC" who had told him it wasn't true. After some meaningless revert warring, I took the time to find a perfectly reliable source for it (from the BBC itself), although the particular wording "invested heavily" was not used. At first, I wanted to keep the original wording, because I felt that even if the word "heavily" wasn't in the particular source I had found, the passage was obviously originally written by somebody who knew a fair bit about video journalism, probably more than me and definately more than Mister-jones. Nevertheless, I've already agreed with Mister-joens that there is no need to include the word "heavily" (see [4]).

As for the "broadcast quality" paragraph, same thing about that one, it was written by somebody else and then deleted by Mister-jones (in its entirety, not just the two words). Having taken a class in video journalism myself, I knew that there was nothing wrong with this particular passage, and I found a source to support it. When Mister-jones then started deleting "broadcast quality" and that part only, seemingly out of malice more than anything else (see the venomic posts on this talkpage), I found a second source explicitly using the wording "broadcast quality". While those two words might not make much of a difference to the overall quality of the article, I do not see why something which is not only accurate but also properly sourced should be deleted at the whim of an editor with a record of very disruptive edits (he blanked my userpage four times [5] and this article three times [6], not to forget the many incivil remarks you can read on this page). You talk of first hand knowledge and personal expertise, but just because Mister-jones claims to have such experience it doesn't mean he is free to delete whatever he wants. Personally, I have a very hard time believing that somebody who vandalizes user pages leaving messages such as:

"You can't ban me when I'm surrounded by Wifi, genius. Quit editing the video journalism entry and understand what it is you're reading before claiming you know what you're talking about, jackass. Have fun constantly repairing your page"[7] would have much expertise on anything. Mackan 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it may be difficult, strive to assume good faith. Some editors have an abrasive way of doing things, but still may share the same goal as the rest of us, to improve Wikipedia articles. It's human nature to remove the edits of someone who annoys you. I see annoyance on both sides here, manifested in different ways. I see one side trying to find sources to improve things, and another side reacting with impatience at statements he knows are incorrect from personal professional experience. Compete for the moral high ground in behavior, instead of competing for the winning edit. Also remember, abusive language doesn't disqualify someone from having expertise. You don't have to believe him, but try to understand from his point of view.

To the credit of both of you, both have been willing to discuss differences on the talk page.

Mister-jones does have a point about the veracity of press releases as sources, because press releases are essentially self-serving advertisements. You can allay concerns by writing the article in terms of what is claimed by a press release (rather than stating the press-release claim as fact in the article), or by removing adjectives (like "broadcast quality") that make the claim subject to question. Frankly, even to me, including the term "broadcast quality" seems unnecessary, for I have seen videojournalists carrying a consumer camera as backup. The focus of that sentence isn't the broadcast quality of equipment, but the fact that quality equipment has shrunk in both size and cost. -Amatulic 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word "broadcast". Thank you for your help. Mackan 12:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You really, really need to get over all those comments, Mackan. I clearly stated I'm taking Wiki more seriously now. It's a pity you're so hung up on things that happened months ago.

I removed the press release reference, because I wholly agree with Amatulic's "self-serving advertisements" comment. Thank you for your input, Amatulic.

Mister-jones 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

General Edit Discussion

Removed "first industry-wide" because the article says nothing about PA being the first to educate video journalists, nor does it say the "entire" industry in the UK is converting to video journalism (which is what "industry wide" actually means). Either you misunderstood that segment of the article, or your addition was poorly-worded. You must understand the article from which you are pulling information before posting it as fact, or understand how your entry may be read.

Removed "Videojournalism was first introduced in the UK in 1994 with the launch of Channel One - a 24 hour cable news channel- modelled on New York One and owned by Associated Newspapers. Many of those vjs have gone on to become household names," because the claim is not supported by references.

Mister-jones 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Names

I'm terrified to edit this page because I can see there's been a very contentious edit war involving the topic... but I think it's definately worth mentioning the other names this form of newsgathering is known as. We rarely call videojournalists by that title in the industry. We usually say "VJ". We're also called "backpack journalists" and "one man bands" (OMBs are actually the VJ predessor). I've never heard the term "solo journalist", which is the only alternate term addressed in this article. I propose editing the first paragraph to include that video journalists are also known as all of the above terms.--Videojournalist (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Video journalism. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080711155849/http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=146372 to http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=146372
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071008082556/http://hotzone.yahoo.com:80/meet-kevin to http://hotzone.yahoo.com/meet-kevin

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) 08:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)