Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> 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
|
