::scr Blogging

[matt jones]

Well, I've come to this kinda late because I've been away, but what the
hey.

[ journal keeper blogs ]
Yes, a lot, perhaps the vast majority of journal-keeping blogs are
tedious, self-indulgent whining bollocks. So what? If you believe in the
internet as a great democratising, levelling force for free speech and the
free flow of information (maybe you don't, maybe you do), then you just
have to put up with this[0]. 

After all, you all already do as much as any one person can do against the
plummeting of the lowest common denominator - you publish excellent
content of your own. But the law of averages says that for every Very
Clever Person putting up Interesting, Original or Useful content, there
will be many more who simply don't have the skills or ability or talent
produce content of the same quality. And you have to let them publish what
they do produce.

It's part and parcel of the whole thing; you have to put up with letting
self-obsessed neurotics have their say in the same way that you have to
put up with bigots having their say. I'm sorry, but we can't have it both
ways. I mean, cripes, dull diaries are hardly the most offensive content
published on the web. Here we are, complaining about the people who keep
online journals when there's stuff like this out there:

http://www.resist.com/updates/2001updates/9.28.01aryanupdate.htm
http://www.bnp.org.uk/
http://www.anu.org/
	
The alternative is to restrict access to publishing on the internet to
those who are deemed "good enough". And who decides that? I feel that that
goes against the whole point of the internet (well, as I see it,
anyway). Of course, you might feel that stupid lusers or even just the
under-talented *should* be prevented from "write-access" to the
internet. I don't subscribe to that view.

I remember the last time I went round this one somebody suggested that we
should license people to use computers in the same way we do cars,
i.e. not until they pass some basic competence test. I think they were
missing the point. Less is at stake with computers. I've never heard of
anyone killing several people by ploughing their computer into a bus
queue.

Simon B:
> Your last option is the best. Filter the gloss, and find the things
> that engage you. An overly high gloss:interest ratio can be tiring,
> though.

I agree. And it may be tiring, but it's the price you pay for free
speech. Sad but true.

[ the "technical priesthood" ]
Simon B:
> I'm
> finding myself more and more irritated with people who expect to be
> able to sit down in front of a computer and use it without being
> willing to understand *anything* about how it works. They're the
> equivalent of someone who wants to drive a car, but "can't be
> bothered" to learn which way round the pedals go, or why switching
> into reverse gear at 70mph would be a bad thing.

I disagree. I really don't think that you can draw a direct analogy
between the extreme cluelessness of not knowing which way round your brake
and accelerator are with simply being unaware of how a blogging engine
takes the contents of a textarea and puts them on a webpage, or what tag
you have to type to make a word bold. Shit, I have no idea how the
internal combustion engine works and I don't know my camshaft from my big
end (fnar), but I don't think that that means I have no right to drive a
car[1]. 

I always find it odd having this kind of discussion. The vast majority of
my friends are decidedly Non-Technical, and to them even I apparently seem
extremely knowledgable. But I know enough to realise how little I actually
know (especially compared to some of the people I know from mailing lists
etc). It kind of gives me a dual perspective. I can realy identify with
people who become frustrated with persistent, obstinate cluelessness, but
I'm pretty tolerant of the person who may not have a great deal of
knowledge/experience but who has a genuine desire to learn. I also don't
approve of making people feel stupid, *even if they are*[2].

Perhaps I need more time in the trenches. :)

But more seriously, I think that giving everyday people access to a medium
without requiring a great deal of technical knowledge is a Good
Thing. People get to express themselves and they might just create
something incredibly beautiful or engrossing. Okay, the vast majority of
them probably will produce reams of utter shite, but this is where I think
Grep has a point about search engines (and the relevant skills). Isn't
solving this sort of problem creatively by making better tools exactly the
sort of thing that is Right and Joyous for a geek or geeks to do?

OK, maybe it's not, but I certainly don't think it's beyond us, either.

[ link-poster blogs ]
Here's a thought. Do you think that link-posting type blogs are a
naturally occurring, crude, ad-hoc form of peer review? In the way that
I'm certain that almost any link I find on scribot will be worth visiting? 

-- 
mjx
better late than ... oh, right. sorry.

[0] But then I would say that. After all, I still use my website to put up
friend's party pictures, and I'm completely unashamed about it. :)
[1] I cannae get much more from this metaphor, cap'n!
[2] Saying that, the vast majority of the Scarily Clever People I know
have always been nothing but the soul of friendly, polite encouragement
whenever I've asked a question, even if it's a trivial question to
them. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that the technical
community's reputation for intolerant abrasiveness is pretty heavily
exaggerated.