Categories: blogs | communication | web 2.0
Ha ha ha ha ha... This made me laugh. I've been doing a lot of reading, trying to sort out the "bubble that will burst vs revolution that will change the world" debate about the evolution of the web. I found the irreverant Go Flock Yourself quite by accident and just had to pass along the following. It's commentary on an excerpt from Robert Scoble's new book about business blogging, in which he gives his list of six things that make blogging different from other forms of media.
“Social” (did the editor put his foot down against “Socialable?”) isn’t a misnomer, but the vast majority of the segments of this “one big conversation!” that I’ve witnessed play out like one big shitty office cocktail party — a bunch of people smiling and nodding and half-paying attention to one another while their brains fiendishly work out the problem of how to refocus the conversation on themselves.
I had to chuckle. I love the idea that the web is helping people to become participants rather than just consumers, and helping people to find their voice and express themselves. But some of the zealous proclamations about the massive democratic conversation that is the blogosphere can be a bit much, and it's true that talking does not necessarily equate to contributing value to the conversation.
(Yesterday I also read "The Amorality of Web 2.0" by Nick Carr, where he writes about the religious fervour some people have about the web, and his particular concerns about the growing "culture of the amateur." I'll leave it to him to make his point.)
For myself, I am left to conclude that the important factor remains the consciousness of the people using the tools. Just as individuals have to learn skills to communicate and collaborate in the "real world" (things like good listening skills, the practice of not acting or speaking from a reactionary or "triggered" state, the discernment to know when your comments are adding value, and when they are merely masturbatory, etc), so do we have to learn and apply the online equivalents of those skills. I think it's this personal and collective evolution of awareness that will determine whether or not the emerging technology will live up to all its hype.
(Sheesh, and I thought I was just going to post the quote!)
at last!
Tue, 2006-01-24 00:19 — notchcode (not verified)...now y'all know how us graphic designers feel. With everyone using Microsoft FrontPage to make websites, or PowerPoint (or even Excel) to create "brochures", people like to think they are suddenly designers. "Culture of the amateur", indeed.
There's nothing wrong with being an amateur. I am plenty amateurish at lots of stuff...including all this Gen-Y blogging and txt mssgng., etc...but I have no illusions that I am good at it, and am happy to take advice,and pay someone else to do it better, if I can't do it better myself.
To your thesis: The problem does lie in contribution. Does creating your very own webpage about X contribute to society (even a more insular one, like your family)? Well, if it does, who am I to say that the design sucks. Or that the content is bad. One thing that the web does is segment people, while at the same time bring them together. Sure, we're all out in the same web cloud somewhere, but just because I'm posting my cycling times doesn't mean you are reading them, or that I feel you have to (although the fact that I linked to it here probably means I long for some sort of validation).
I thought the whole original idea of a blog was just a place where someone could post stuff to save for future reference. (Wired had a column about the inventor of the blog being a homeless dude in San-Fran, now, BTW.) I know blogging can do a lot more, like provide a separate source for original journalism, give people a creative outlet or even forum to express themselves, and have meaningful conversations; and it's at that point that your point about contributing valuable points is a good point. But blogging is whatever the blogger wants it to be, because they're only writing for their intended audience, right? Even if it's just an audience of one. And I suppose if you're all alone, what's wrong with a little self-satisfaction?
Are blogs and the web TV or railroads?
Tue, 2006-01-24 13:53 — Christopher Parker (not verified)Some technology merely automates the process of disseminating blather and wasting time. But some technology impacts the conversation because it alters how people spend their time. TV. But TV is a problem and has diminshed the community. Railroads. Railroads enabled commerce in a new way. They enabled all the ills of the industrial era and built new towns and brought an easier life. Clearly the web is doing a lot of that, but are blogs? What are blogs doing to the way people spend their time? Do you spend a lot of time on your blog? What else would it go for?