“How do individual voices establish and maintain integrity on the web? How can that effort be encouraged and supported? 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?”
These aren’t my questions; but they are questions I’d love it if you helped me answer, LibraryLand style, for a one-day conference I’m going to this Friday, held by the Institute for the Future of the Book. Below is my invitational letter, slightly munged and annotated. What would you say? What links would you point these people towards? As librarians, what do you think? Email me privately, if you prefer, but comments here would be enjoyed by all of FRL’s readers.
———————
Dear Free Range Librarian [well, they said Karen, but it was really to FRL],
I would like to invite you to a small meeting being held by the [drop-dead-impressive institute, or DDII] based at the [large university] and funded by [private foundations that really like smart people]. The DDII has two principal activities: one is building high-end tools for making rich media electronic documents (part of [another large university’s] higher-ed digital infrastructure initiative); the other is exploring and hopefully influencing the evolution of new forms of intellectual expression and discourse. We have an active blog [well, not nearly as active as Librarian in Black, Shifted Librarian, or Tame the Web], if:book, which reflects the full breadth of our interests and activities.
Over the past several months we have been hatching a new project to encourage academics [academics! Yet I was invited] with expert knowledge and a distinctive voice [well, at least I’m loud] to use blogs and other internet-based vehicles to step beyond the boundaries of the academy to reach out to a broader public audience. the genesis of the project was recognizing about nine months ago, the importance of juan cole’s, Informed Comment blog, which many of us consult daily to find out what’s really happening in Iraq. (Juan is coming to the meeting.) [FRL looked at this blog; it’s good, but unsurprising.]
The world is complicated. [Like authority control!] Whether the subject is Iraq, taxes, global warming or an influenza pandemic, there are experts in the universities who possess crucial knowledge and insight into these issues. Bloggers who are experts in these fields can help us to parse “the news,” which today is so thoroughly mediated by corporate interests that we often feel we don’t know enough to engage in the social discourse necessary for a healthy society. there are many questions. How do individual voices establish and maintain integrity on the web? How can that effort be encouraged and supported? 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?
We are planning a meeting of 10-12 people at [large university] to discuss these questions. the meeting will be on friday november 11.
We’re inviting an eclectic group. Our instinct is that the discussion will be lively and likely to yield unexpected and valuable insights that will form the basis of a proposal to the [foundation that really, really likes smart people] for a substantial project in this area. (A similar meeting last may, laid the foundation for the Next\Text project which is seeking to have a significant impact on the development of digital textbooks.)
I think your perspective would be very valuable
I hope you can come. [But what shall I say? The rest is easy: I plan to wear black; that’s easy enough–when in doubt, go in Urban Noir. I wonder what the food will be like!]
[signed,]
[famous person]
Posted on this day, other years:
- For you're no bigger than my thumb... - 2009
- Powder: The YouTube Trailer - 2008
- Email lists: are they last-century? - 2007
- Defrag 2007: Exploring the Implicit - 2007
- The Unmentionable Tallahassee Issue Gets Mentioned - 2006
- A Dissident and a Magazine - 2004
- lii.org Toolbar - 2003
- RSS Woes - 2003
- Second IL Con-Grunt: Search - 2003
- Six Degrees of David Brin - 2003
Hmm, the bit that stuck in my craw was this: “Bloggers who are experts in these fields can help us to parse “the news,” which today is so thoroughly mediated by corporate interests that we often feel we don’t know enough to engage in the social discourse necessary for a healthy society.”
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.
Such amazing questions! They immediately caused me to go in all sorts of directions…here are my first-blush thoughts on them.
“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!
Good comments, folks. Heidi, this struck a chord: “Maybe the libraryland angle lies in reminding them to pay attention to the user.” That’s what I did at WebCred… I think it may be the most urgent message I can bring to the table.
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!
Great remarks from Heidi, and it reminded me of another thing I forgot to mention.
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, would you feel that way about a health issue? What if your surgeon said he had found an interesting new procedure on Wikipedia and was going to try it out on you that day? I think we respect (and need) authority qua authority more than you’re admitting.
I just posted an article a few days ago on the rise of the individual voice, entitled “Supreme Reality of the Blogosphere.”
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.
kgs: We’ve tread some of this ground before 🙂 I would hardly expect a surgeon to operate on me via information in the wikipedia. What I would expect is that the scientific process of independent verification was followed to determine that said procedure was efficacious . This web of supporting facts might convince me to allow him to do the surgery, but NOT because he said so. Because there was proof external to his insistance…that’s the actual reason I would trust his opinion. NOT because of authority qua authority, but because of the network of supporting facts built up to support his case.
How individuals establish and maintain integrity on the web…a wonderfully important topic.
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
:^)