[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Media organizations, although imperfect, have staff people to do fact checking.
> Academic papers are often peer reviewed.
> We know there's a difference in the credibility of those sources versus blogs
> and fringe web sites. So we need a solution for filtering out the junk.
Maybe I am not as caught up in the whole blog thing as I thought I was.
But I thought that blogs were peer reviewed. I know that when I am short
on time I skip most of the cruft and just read the various planets I am
subscribed to (e.g. planet.xmlhack.com). The wonderful folks there have
made some decisions for me about what to read and I am pretty happy
about it. And when one of those bloggers comes out and says something
wacky, two or three others latch on and voice their opinions. For really
questionable stuff I check the trackbacks. I subscribe to Monogatari
because Eno Atsushi writes cutting edge code all the time and I want to
know when he does it.
> In a followup piece, he also commented about the quality and
> accuracy of blogs:
> "A blog is a species of interactive electronic diary by means of
which the
> unpublishable, untrammeled by editors or the rules of grammar, can
communicate
> their thoughts via the web."
I tend to disagree. The blogosphere has always struck me as a far more
postmodern experiment than diaries. I attach my own interpretation to
the didactic *conversation*. Maybe I am wrong but it seems we have come
full circle to the self-publishing of Samuel Pepys carrying along a
completely different context in our knapsack.
All the best,
Jeff Rafter
|
