<p>Hi, I have a political blog of my own with 1000 political articles. Do you think it can be used as an EC or is it useless and considered something like livejournal , (which isnt an EC)? Please give me some input. Thanks!</p>
<p>Any advice appreciated BUMP</p>
<p>definitely creative and impressive idea@!</p>
<p>good for u!</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Thank you very much. Any more replies please?</p>
<p>I'm not sure how it would look in the ec list though -maybe it would need expanding/ detailing in the essay? i dunno what app you're using but if there's a box asking about your most meaningful ec, talkabotu it there and it should be okay, a fab thing even.</p>
<p>How about I explain it in my "brag sheet?" I have another EC which is more meaningful than this and I am looking foward to writing an essay on this.</p>
<p>Alien, I think you need some concrete measures to impress the admissions folks. Anyone can start up a blog in five minutes, and there will probably be someone on the committee who knows this. The real measures of success as a blogger are your content (quality and quantity), and, even more important, your impact in the blogosphere. For the latter, you could look at traffic (daily visitors, pageviews, etc.), number of visitor comments, number of other blogs linking to your articles, etc.</p>
<p>You'll have to try to present this without arcane jargon, though. It would also be worth mentioning if your blog has been quoted by a major publication or a household-name website.</p>
<p>Adcoms tend to look for external validation of accomplishments. E.g., "I practice piano three hours a day and have mastered several difficult concertos" isn't nearly as good as "I won the gold medal in a regional concerto competition, and performed the piece with the _____ Symphony."</p>
<p>This is something I'm curious about too. I'm very active in the Malaysian political blogosphere, and have written a substantial number of articles on local politics. Although I have not been quoted by any major publication (although most major publications here are government-owned, and I am quite in the anti-government camp), I have had several (about half a dozen) letters published in the [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysiakini%5DMalaysiakini%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysiakini]Malaysiakini[/url</a>] news website. I also used blogging software that I programmed myself, not the cookie-cutter LiveJournal kind of stuff.</p>
<p>Another thing I'd like to know - would being an avid contributor to [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%5DWikipedia%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/]Wikipedia[/url</a>] be an EC? I was elected a SysOp there in June of last year, and have helped start or write over two dozen featured articles (recognised as the very best Wikipedia has to offer; only 0.1% of its articles are featured, and the process of becoming a featured article includes extensive critiqueing from several Wikipedians). About half a dozen of the articles I helped get featured have appeared on the front page of Wikipedia. Is this a credible EC?</p>
<p>If it's the link in your profile, a problem is that there's no part that identifies the site owner as you. In addition, I didn't see any articles that seemed to be by you.</p>
<p>It seemed like it could be an interesting subject for an essay or an interview, but I don't know how seriously colleges will take it as an EC. I don't think that it would count as a hook unless you end up being on TV or in the news as a result of your blog. That's what has happened to some people who started blogs and then ended up working as political commentators.</p>
<p>The link in my profile is my political forum, which I just started two months ago with a fellow CCer. Its not a blog, just a forum to discuss politics. I think I can make the forum really big and popular when I have time. Unfortunately, I am involved in a peace campaign and I promised that I wont stop till my Senator co-sponsors the bill. That is why its pretty unactive as of now.</p>
<p>Thanks for the ideas Roger and NSM. I'll take those into consideration. I have a serious interest in Bangladeshi politics and I want to write articles on this subject. Do you have ideas of any activity I can do related to this that can make me stand out in the eyes of adcoms? Thanks again.</p>
<p>alien_workshop:
Since I'm active in my own country's political blogosphere, I think I can provide some suggestions. You can help out at [url=<a href="http://wikipedia.org%5DWikipedia%5B/url">http://wikipedia.org]Wikipedia[/url</a>], editing articles related to Bangladeshi politics. If you can get them good enough, you can apply for featured article status for them, which is very prestigious and makes them candidates for the front page. This itself would count as "external validation" I think.</p>
<p>If any Bangladeshi politicians have blogs, you could frequent them and comment too. (The Malaysian opposition has a lot of politicians who have started their own blogs.) If your insights are of particular worth, they might be highlighted by the blogger(s), which is, again, "external validation", I would say.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Roger on this. Anyone can start a blog and type for hours and hours...if you were so famous as a blogger that you were quoted by the New York Times etc., then maybe it would make a difference....</p>
<p>Also, while you could say you wrote a blog, I personally (as an Ivy interviewer for many, many years) find it hard to believe that many adcoms would have the time and inclination to log on and read what you wrote.....</p>
<p>I think being involved in a peace campaign etc, is soemtihng a lotmore substantial though, well written/fleshed out, maybe even a hook of sorts. Talk about the blog by all means but maybe onlyas a part of a general package that rpesents you as a strong, politically motivated passionate induvidual?</p>
<p>well, would that count as an EC?</p>
<p>
[quote]
alien_workshop:
Since I'm active in my own country's political blogosphere, I think I can provide some suggestions. You can help out at Wikipedia, editing articles related to Bangladeshi politics. If you can get them good enough, you can apply for featured article status for them, which is very prestigious and makes them candidates for the front page. This itself would count as "external validation" I think.</p>
<p>If any Bangladeshi politicians have blogs, you could frequent them and comment too. (The Malaysian opposition has a lot of politicians who have started their own blogs.) If your insights are of particular worth, they might be highlighted by the blogger(s), which is, again, "external validation", I would say.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I like this idea. A couple of questions though.</p>
<p>1.) Can you tell me how I can apply for featured article status? And how long do they stay in the front page?</p>
<p>2.) Is there any proof that I was behind this work?</p>
<p>3.) How can I be nominated for SysOP?</p>
<p>4.) You mentioned that the edited portion are reviewed by other Wikipedians. Does that mean that I have to edit the article to a great degree even when its not necessary?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>You apply for featured status at this</a> place. Be warned that becoming featured only puts the article in the pool of possible articles to be featured on the front page. Articles that get selected remain on the front page for about 24 hours.</p>
<p>The proof is in the page history - if you register an account, the page history of the article will list all the edits made to it, including yours (presuming you registered; otherwise all that shows is your IP address), and you can show that you were the one who edited it a lot.</p>
<p>You can be nominated for sysop by someone who knows you, or if you think you deserve it enough, you can nominate yourself [url=<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA%5Dhere%5B/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>If the article doesn't need a lot of editing, that means it must be close to featured status. I'd say substantial editing when the article doesn't need it is dishonest. Just go ahead and find (or start) an article that needs editing and improve it.</p>
<p>Is there any higher position I can apply for other than SysOP. I mean, it it possible to get promotions.</p>
<p>Well, you could become a bureaucrat, but that's extremely hard to do - I know of sysops who have been at Wikipedia longer than I have and still have their applications for bureaucratship turned down.</p>
<p>Some really prestigious posts would be becoming an arbitrator or mediator. I don't know how you become a mediator, but the job basically involves helping two (or more) arguing Wikipedians sort things out. Becoming an arbitrator usually involves getting elected by the Wikipedian community and is quite hard to do - I ran last year, and didn't get anywhere close to making the cut (although I did get a respectable 13% of the vote).</p>
<p>Other posts can be even more prestigious, and often involve having been with Wikipedia for a long, long time. I'm talking about becoming Chief Technological Officer or Chief Financial Officer or Board Member of Wikimedia (the organisation that operates Wikipedia). This is very unfeasible unless you've been with Wikipedia for a long time and have contributed greatly.</p>
<p>Do you have to edit 1000 articles to even be considered nomination?</p>
<p>Well, not technically, but it's very, very, very unlikely you'll succeed in becoming an administrator unless you've edited at least a thousand articles. Most voters like to see two thousand edits at least.</p>