Talk:Microblogging

hola k ace espero q esten bien jajajjajajajajajjjajaj

History and early example

Don't know if we will ever develop a historical/predecessors section, but at the W3C before 2002 I was blogging many small items a day, characterized by keyword and available to colleagues via RSS. I called it "Busysponge" --Reagle (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know when the first microblog actually took place. I've been providing 'soundbites' of my blog posts since 27 April 2002[1], which look much like my microblogs on Twitter today. The one on that date in particular was 134 characters long --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did this term originate? Anyone have any sources? --Dan Leveille^TALK 00:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 I used the term on 16/07/2003 http://web.archive.org/web/20070207235741/http://www.dominux.co.uk/dominuxblog.nsf/FullArchive?OpenView to describe my blog at the time which did not have a comment facility and was one-way updates. I wasn't describing what we now know as microblogging, but the word predates the 2005 example (which also doesn't really describe current use)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.92.70 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 

It would be interesting to check references for 'ancient' roots of microblogging style. Diaries are of course in this category. I recently stumbled upon Anton Chekhov notebook/diary and found it to be a pretty good example of 19th century 'microblogging'. It would be nice to also checkout telegrams.--Wcris (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The first example of microblogging/tumblogs is The Aquarium from Ben Lindelof. Video of it is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bthudlyjdA and the website is here: http://benjaminlindelof.tripod.com/bluepuff/theaquarium.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.9 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms

Come on you lazy bastards! Let's get the Criticisms section rolling!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.46.99 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Micro blog and Tumblelog has significant difference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.130.8.6 (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTA BENE

The closure of Pownce hasn't been mentionned yet...

~~jansegers

Pieter Jansegers http://microblogs.ning.com

---

^^^

What's the point in having a seperate phrase, who ever created this phrase is splitting hairs for the sake of saying "I invented a unique phrase". What's wrong with "Status updates"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.198.172 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Move to Microblogging?

Shouldn't this be "Microblogging"? The hyphenated version sounds nearly as Zweibelesque as "news-paper" . Jpatokal (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Qiaohua —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Why is the lemma a gerund? Wouldn't it be more consistent with Wikipedia usage to move this to Microblog? Cf Blog (not Blogging). And I don't think microblog is a synonym of tumblelog. A tumblelog is a medium to broadcast anything, often images. A microblog serves to broadcast SMS-like text messages.--94.222.218.157 (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should be "microblog" just as the blogging topic is handled under "blog". I see three problems with "microblogging" as the topic. One is that it puts the emphasis on the process, the activity of doing it. The second is that the adjectival use of "microblog" is less cumbersome. Third is perhaps subjective, but my hardware reports a greater degree of continuity with the gerund form, whereas the reality is that a microblog is much less continuous than a blog. Then again, I acknowledge that I am a skeptic about the entire topic, and in spite of several years of use, I see no significant utility in Twitter. Perhaps I should call it "attempted use", since it's quite probable that I'm just 'using' it incorrectly. If it's an election, I vote for "Microblog" as the title of the article. Shanen (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Issues with Microblogging Section"

That entire paragraph needs to be cited or scrapped. It doesn't read well.

24.187.110.140 (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Reads a bit like original research to me.

David Delony (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Needs to be completed rewritten, because it doesn't address the real issues (attention whoring, 21th century alienation, etc) and seems a bit lame compared to the utopian and foll affirmations of the "Microblogging for organizational usage" section. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.240.243 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

pbj.ca-link?

I don’t see the point of the link “The pbj.ca distributed instance of the laconica Microblogging Open Source Software Project uses nginx for scale and speed”. Please elaborate or possibly remove. --Nomeata (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actual size?

The lead paragraph states that the content of micro-blogging messages is smaller in "actual size." What the heck does that mean? Actually what? It's totally confusing and meaningless.Trashbird1240 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy of free versus commercial software

The section Microblogging for organizational usage is lead by a ridiculous set of sentences that reinforces the false dichotomy between free software and "commercial software," implying that free software can't be commercialized. The section should either discuss the dichotomy as between free (as in freedom) and proprietary microblogging platforms, or between commercially hosted and self-hosted platforms.Trashbird1240 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Traditional?

Article says: "A microblog differs from a traditional blog........."

At the risk of sounding ancient, I'm going to ask, have blogs been around long enough that it makes sense to talk about "traditional" blogs? CBHA (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of TRADITION from www.merriam-webster.com

1 a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)

b : a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable

2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction

3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions

4 : characteristic manner, method, or style <in the best liberal tradition>

— tra·di·tion·al adjective

what is difference between "microblog" and "blog"?

reading through this "microblogging" article, it appears to be just a variation on a blog. what makes it worthy of a standalone article and not merely a section of blog? i'm still clueless on its uniqueness. (also why is this entitled "microblogging" (vs. "microblog" like the parent blog)?)--96.232.126.111 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like PR copy

Can't the following be re-written? It sounds like something a public relations rep would write:

Microblogging services have revolutionized the way information is consumed. It has empowered citizens themselves to act as sensors or sources of data which could lead to important pieces of information. People now share what they observe in their surroundings, information about events, and what their opinions are about certain topics, for example government policies in healthcare. Moreover, these services store various metadata from these posts, such as the location and time of these shared posts. Aggregate analysis [11] of this data includes different dimensions like space, time, theme, sentiment, network structure etc., and gives us an exciting opportunity to understand social perceptions of the people about certain events of interest, for tapping the pulse of the populace, or a platform for situational awareness and, as correctly pointed out above- a perfect medium of communication during crisis management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.60.4 (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references

Regarding [2]. Per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Avoiding_clutter: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)