[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I agree.
1. Blogs dedicated to promoting a product
or mixed with the personal journal posts
should have a clear policy. If they don't,
then they can find themselves in trouble
later when someone keeps a separate log
and proves the blogger was informed about a topic
that they pruned. It looks like memo shredding.
For that and other reasons, corporate lawyers
are nervous about non-corporate blogging with
corporate content. Better not to allow comments
in these cases. If one does, be as clean as
a hounds tooth.
2. I distrust bloggers who only reference other
bloggers with the same opinions. It isn't
simply unsportsmanlike, it isn't informative.
It attempts to fake consensus instead of
building it. That is why for all of the noise
on mail lists, they are more reliable sources
if one is sharp in their field.
The danger of listening is hearing something
one doesn't like. The danger of not listening
is not knowing what one doesn't like until it
is popular.
len
ps: Limbaugh claims to be an entertainer and
that hypocrisy doesn't apply to him. One has
to take his commentary in the same spirit as
Britney kissing Madonna: it may mean something
but is likely "just for the show ya know". I
don't listen to talk radio. I prefer soothing
to enraging. If I want to laugh, I read the
news. If I want to cry, I read the news. The
content for those has been plentiful of late.
From: Joel Bender [mailto:jjb5@cornell.edu]
>Should blog owners prune their blogs?
I expect a blog to be a reasonably long term record of public
comment. If by pruning you mean remove your own comments, you and
your readers will lose some valuable history of how your thoughts
have changed (or not) over time. If you mean just to remove
comments, you will, at least to remove spam.
>Should they prune responses that are not in agreement with the theme
>of their blogs?
I do not expect a blog to be a bulletin board with a bunch of "me
too" sticky notes all over it, it looses some of its community value.
I think if it more like a soapbox, and sometimes the cheers and jeers
of the audience as just as entertaining and informative as the
speaker.
>For example: if I write a blog supporting Longhorn and XAML, should
>I prune out responses from XULies who simply don't like XAML?
You don't have to make comments publicly available at all, if you
don't want to. You'll probably find that folks will talk about your
entries on their own blog. If that was your only goal, strictly
supporting Longhorn and XAML, it would be difficult to view it as
something other than marketing material.
>A blog is not a maillist. How much should it be respected as an
>open means of communication?
It depends on the author and how open they are. There are some
authors I don't trust, regardless of how "well respected" they are in
their community or by how much putrid drivel they post on their site.
In the end the respect it gets will be a reflection of what's written.
>Should we trust aggregations of self-selecting experts by content or
>by their habits?
I normally would take them just by their content, but then I heard
Rush Limbaugh come up with a new definition of hypocrisy yesterday
and it cemented in my mind what my parents taught me all
along...actions speak louder than words.
|
