I cheer you on in this pursuit.

I started a blog called Blog Core Values, in which I address what I have determined to be the 9 core values that blogs should try to maintain and explain to others.

1. Authority 2. Passion 3. Transparency 4. Credibility 5. Individualism 6. Creativity 7. Originality 8. Relevance 9. Integrity

:^)

While two way interactive conversation is the strong asset of any blog in any situation, still, the independent, free thinking self-expression of an individual is key.

Blogs represent the universalization of web content. Virtually anyone anywhere, with internet access and a computer, can have a blog, can disseminate digitally and globally any message.

Only telephone and word of mouth have been universal communication media, but they were far from global in reach. But now blogs make global audience participation possible.

Unilateral conglomerate propaganda is dead. Long live the blog.

I love hearing voices, but I loath authority qua authority for information evaluation. That is, I like people who talk well about a given subject. What I don’t like is the concept of authority generally for whether information is “good” or “bad.” I’d rather the discussion pull that out than simply accepting someone’s PoV on a topic. One should avoid, as Heidi puts it “the Fetishization” of the information source, and instead focus on the conversation itself.

Jason, I like the idea of bringing our human personalities to the IM table. As for getting the invitation, some much more important people were busy… but I’m not complaining!

“How do individual voices establish and maintain integrity on the web?” I think that individuals maintain integrity by being diligent in their writing, by linking to support documents, and by practicing good writing practices in general. These include but are not limited to: citation, transparency, and honesty. Note that neutrality isn’t in there (this isn’t strict journalism)…I want my ‘net voices to be polarized to some degree. I want to see the passion for the topics.

“How can several voices be aggregated in a way that expands both the audience and the interaction with readers without sacrificing the independence of the individual voice? What are the strengths and weaknesses of blogs in terms of affording both easy expression of complex ideas and an emerging conversation about those ideas?”

Part of the first question is a technical question…a design question. The first thought I had was that to some degree design and interface has something to do with being able to pull out individual voices on a site. While language is certainly a part of individual voice, it can only benefit the reader when you mark the seperate voices by design choices as well. The web is a visual medium as much as it is a textual medium. My initial thought was something like using color as a distinguishing point between voices…similar but different than some IM programs. If I were designing a blog that needed this functionality, I’d start with identifying the different authors by a soft color background differentiation…my posts on a soft green, yours on a soft yellow, etc. That would allow visual distinction of voice before text even came into the picture. I know that’s not the actual question…but that was where it took me.
I do think that they blog is a great form for these sorts of issues. My only concern is that the conversation sometimes spread thinner than a reader can follow (across multiple other blogs, etc). Trackbacks are some of the answer, but they have their own special set of issues.

I look forward to seeing what others say! I’m also jealous/proud that you got invited to something like this. Way to go, Karen!

Are folks really shying away from social discourse? What about that Pew study published last week that termed half of all teens “content creators”? To me that glass is half full, but maybe your Famous Person thinks it’s half empty.

I took a look at their if:book blog, and found a quote from FRL that struck a chord on this issue: “Ranganathan…was referring to a tendency in some people to fetishize the information source itself and lose sight that ultimately, information does not exist to please and amuse its creators or curators; as a common good, information can only be assessed in context of the needs of its users.” The way that invitation letter champions the Expert seems a bit like it’s fetishizing the information source. But perhaps I’m out in left field, since the FRL post I quote from above talked about the value of information that you can trust, which I suppose is what the Experts are aiming to provide. Then again, calling yourself an Expert doesn’t automatically establish trust.

Maybe the libraryland angle lies in reminding them to pay attention to the user.