Jump to content

Talk:Canadian blogosphere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hockey Blogs? Art Blogs? Canadian Literature Blogs?

[edit]

This description is too focussed on the "political" blogosphere. There are lots of other "wings" of the Canadian Blogosphere that are more clearly "Canadian" in their scope. Check out the large collection of hockey blogs, for instance.

Add it if you want. No reason not to.
Jason Cherniak 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

political discription

[edit]

I would suggest moving the appropriate sections of Progressive Bloggers here. That article would be more focused as a result. Also, many of the arguments for importance you've made in the PB article are really about the Canadian blogosphere. I still think you need to be cautious about original research, though. Friday 05:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The two blogging groups should not really be simply labled as centre-left/centre-right.

Even just correcting the "centre-right" to state that the Blogging Tories are Tories would be an understatment. If you look at the blogs, they nearly all advocate policies (far) more right wing than the "mainstream" Conservative party in Canada.

I have been unable to find Wikipedia guidlines for political judgment, but from a Canadian point of view, this one is definatly off base.

  • Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Centrist and Left-wing" and "Centre and Right-wing" for each group? You must keep in the mind that those on the right view some of the Blogging Tories as "centrists". In the past the Blogging Tories were described in this entry as just "right-wing" and it was edited by a sympathetic party to include "centre-right" -- a change that has remained for some time now. When editing Wikipedia you must keep in the mind different P.O.V.'s that must be balanced out; I'm sure many Blogging Tories think most Progressive Bloggers are extreme left-wingers, and would object to the "centrist" tag--Simon.Pole 02:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that is the most accurate way to go about it. I understand that there are many socialists/conservatives etc, who wish to portay themselves as centrist or mainstream. If we let political pundits define themselves, it might make them happy, but we undermine the credibility and impartiality of this information source. The only way to put a label on these groups of bloggers, is to fairly compare them to the general society they represent, Canada.
      • I don't know that Wikipedia makes a claim for impartiality. The operative principle seems to be "point of view". Saying there is no centrist element in the Blogging Tories could be construed as Negative Point of View (especially when a case could be made that there are a number of centrist Blogging Tories, though they are small in number). Your larger point may be correct, but I don't think in the context of Wikipedia you'll carry the day. Change the description of Blogging Tories by all means, but don't be surprised if it leads to an edit war.--Simon.Pole 04:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Blogosphere

[edit]

I think this should really be "Blogsphere". The "o" is unnecessary for pronunciation and there is not such thing as a "blogo".

Jason Cherniak 17:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate blogging

[edit]

This section has been repeatedly put back in. However, this looks to me like an advert for one particular company, with no sources to indicate why this particular company is significant. Anyone else have opinions on this? Friday (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anon who added this back in apparently wants us to do research before removing this? Well, google news gives 0 results for "Social Media Group". If this company is significant, they're keeping it fairly well hidden so far. Friday (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian blogosphere. 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:

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) 02:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian blogosphere. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_blogosphere&oldid=1200586065"