« Webjay: Lucas Gonze goes after user-created music filtering |
Main
| Ward on social engineering in a wiki »
April 21, 2004
Nico Macdonald on the Future of Weblogging
Posted by Seb Paquet
Nico Macdonald has written a forward-thinking article on weblogs highlighting some of the challenges that he believes this writing environment faces at this point in time:
- It needs more journalists;
- It needs to be more externally focused (less concerned with blogs);
- It needs more people writing “second drafts”, closer to knowledge than opinion;
- It needs better tools to navigate and visualize the infoglut that its expansion is creating;
- It needs categorization and reputation management;
- It needs publishers to offer reciprocal links to at least some of the commentary it offers.
Macdonald’s considerations are interesting, but they reflect his conception of what blogs are about (journalism and serious thinking) and thus chiefly apply to those weblogs that aspire to public intellectual leadership. This space is actually large enough that the term itself is becoming highly ambiguous; I wouldn’t dream of asking LiveJournalers to write according to those standards - and nor should they strive to.
Some weblogs are in a fuzzy position, between the public and the personal, and I realize it is causing a tension. For instance, in my personal weblog I tend to use first names to refer to people with whom I have private exchanges and collaboration relationships - here for example. I count many of these people as friends even if I have yet to meet them.
In the frame of reference that Macdonald uses, this is inappropriate and may reinforce cliquishness, but at the same time the tone of my weblog is conversational and it doesn’t feel quite right to refer to these people as I would for instance in an academic publication. Lab conversation is the “real-life” context that matches best for me, and referring people by first names was the rule in the labs I’ve been in; including a link enables people who are not in the loop to determine who I’m talking about.
Comments (10)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: social software
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. Seth Finkelstein on April 22, 2004 2:14 AM writes...
In a sentence, the problem is the word "blogging" is used to refer to *all* of 1) diary 2) chat 3) journalism
These are not the same, in particular they split between "writing for oneself" and "writing for the public".
It would be so much simple if peolpe who just discuss what sort of writing they were doing or aspired to do, instead of the endless "What Is Writing?", err, I mean, "What Is Blogging?"
Permalink to Comment2. Seth Finkelstein on April 22, 2004 2:15 AM writes...
[Oops, I menat that last sentence to be:]
It would be so much simpler if people would just discuss what sort of writing they were doing or aspired to do, instead of the endless "What Is Writing?", err, I mean, "What Is Blogging?"
Permalink to Comment3. Factory on April 22, 2004 4:07 AM writes...
Those rules are ok for a blog like http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/, but are useless for your average LJ, and something like Kuro5hin or Slashdot.
Permalink to Comment4. Elmine Wijnia on April 22, 2004 4:37 AM writes...
In reaction to Seth: this means that we should look for new terms in which those distinctions can be made between different types of blogs. In my research I hope to be able to come up with a new term for the 'professional, personal' blog.
Permalink to Comment5. Nico Macdonald on April 22, 2004 10:51 AM writes...
Addressing terminology will deal with some of the issues I raised in the article. But my point is rather more fundamental. Firstly, I am not referring to most Webloggers, but to those who appreciate the importance of creating and disseminating new knowledge, and see themselves as part of this process. My sense is that they are too quick to post their observations or insights on one issue (perhaps to get blogpoints) but rarely taken the time to string them into a well-referenced and intellectually rigorous article or essay. Even people I know who have practiced journalism in the past have succumbed to this temptation.
In one of my areas of interest, design, the locus of intelligent debate and publishing has largely moved online, very often in Weblog format -- and very valuable it is. But it needs to add depth and reflection, and build some structure of ideas. I am all in favour of the conversational character of current Weblogging -- and very informative and engaging it is -- but we need to step back from this melee if we want to appreciate the bigger conversations.
On the issue of how people refer to one another, where someone has made a comment in the same public space (a Weblog or a Weblog posting), or that person is well-known in a particular area, then it would seem appropriate to refer to them in using an abbreviated or derivative name. But the scale of use of this form indicates that some people are more interested in being in cliques than spreading knowledge.
(BTW, excellent summary of my article, Seb.)
Permalink to Comment6. Gregory Narain on April 22, 2004 1:03 PM writes...
Seth,
I definitely understand what you are saying here and the distinction is very important. At Blogger Con, we spoke over lunch about the notion of Blog Entry Archetypes that I was developing.
My main point is that to get at the composition of a blog, it's species, so to speak, we have to understand the DNA more closely. As in biology, just a few strands of DNA serve to make us completely different from the next species.
I view the blog entries themselves almost as this DNA, that granular object from which blogs are composed. If anyone wants to read more on the archetypes I am proposing, feel free to check here:
http://socialtwister.com/archives/cat_business_of_blogging.html
Permalink to Comment7. Seb on April 22, 2004 2:12 PM writes...
Nico: (okay if I call you Nico here? :) Agreed, there's a "rat race" aspect present in parts of the space that I'm also uncomfortable with because it doesn't leave time for reflection. Being the first to post is a good recipe to attract links, thus many of the most visible weblogs are "scooplogs".
My solution has been to opt out of following most "racer weblogs" in favor of subscribing to feeds with posts that aspire to make a more lasting contribution. There are plenty of those to choose from, even if they are not the first ones we encounter when we enter the blogosphere.
Permalink to Comment8. Phil Wolff on April 24, 2004 6:28 PM writes...
About blogging needing more journalists...
Of course.
But then again, blogging needs more poets.
And short story writers.
And translators.
And pornographers.
And students swapping homework.
And loveletter correspondents.
And shutterbugs.
And school sports commentators.
And whistleblowers.
And citizen journalists.
Permalink to Comment9. Phil Wolff on April 24, 2004 6:30 PM writes...
A little pimping for my candidate:
http://kerry100club.com/citizenjournalists
Permalink to Comment10. Nico Macdonald on May 9, 2004 6:55 PM writes...
I am certainly in favour of "posts that aspire to make a more lasting contribution". I also believe that Weblogs have an important role in 'flying kites' of ideas that may develop into more substantial writing or a project. Additionally, I am interested in the Weblog post as a request for information, or a forum for putting out ideas to see if they are new, or find out where historically they have been considered. But this is getting into the territory of my next article.
Permalink to Comment