Flogging Blogs

Sonny Cloward has a good roundup of the Great Blog Debate that's been going on:

To me the web denotes a static, siloed, irrelevant world (wide web) of the 1990's.  The adoption of blogs (thus syndication, thus content aggregation, thus democratization of information, thus social and knowledge interconnectedness) is going to kill that barren wasteland once and for all.

I'm not sure what will bridge this schism--which I believe to be one part generational and one part privilege--perhaps just time and some good ol' fashiong spin-doctoring. All I know is that I have been thoroughly enjoying this conversation and look forward to the next round.  Ding-Ding!

Although I love a good scrap, I actually thought that my last post on the subject was pretty conciliatory.  (Well, except for that final "Kill your blog--save the web" bit.  Couldn't help myself.)  I think what we're moving toward is an agreement that the web (i.e. predominantly static, siloed content) needs to become more bloggish (i.e. consisting of authentic, interlinked conversations), in Kurt Voelker's delightfully fugly coinage. 

Perhaps blogs will become so popular--obviously in some quarters they already are--that the term will simply become shorthand for those bloggish qualities we all want to see more of online, without referring to any specific platforms.  Or perhaps those bloggish qualities will become so fundamental to other websites that the website/blog distinction will become meaningless--that's the point that got me started on this whole topic.  (Is this starting to remind anyone else of a certain George and Ira Gershwin song?)

Keeping things lively, Marnie Webb links to another good roundup by Beth Kanter, and asks some compelling questions of her own:

The whole discussion -- and the way in which it has been conducted -- provides, to my mind, a good evidence that blogs are in fact different than websites. Could anyone imagine this happening on a bunch of organizational sites? Would they even recommend that it should?

I'm really grappling with that.  I recognize that organizations have limits and liabilities that we as individuals don't--but I still think it could be fantastic to see discussions like this taking place in the context of formal organizational sites.  And, in fact, this very discussion has been.  Kurt Voelker's been weighing in not from a personal site, but from INfluence, a property of his company, Forum One.  If he can do it, why can't the rest of us?

Comments

[marnie webb]

I think what we're moving toward is an agreement that the web (i.e. predominantly static, siloed content) needs to become more bloggish (i.e. consisting of authentic, interlinked conversations), in Kurt Voelker's delightfully fugly coinage.

Absolutely. But is this kind of influence enough? Are there other things that should keep the qualities tied together and not just influences to other parts of the web (or website).

And, in fact, this very discussion has been. Kurt Voelker's been weighing in not from a personal site, but from INfluence, a property of his company, Forum One. If he can do it, why can't the rest of us?

I think that depends a lot on the organization and the way in which the blog (or whatever) is framed.