Over the course of my college quarter in my english class, we have experimented with blogs (weblogs posted by people by means of informing or just giving an opinion. We've done numerous things with the concept of how they work such as reading and interpreting professional (or veteran) blogs, as well as keeping our own (novice) blogs on record for which to communicate and share our opinions with the rest of the class about various topics. In doing so, we've developed a little knowledge of the way blogging works. It's been an interesting process: one which I think I've gathered enough thought and experience to convey what I think of what has become a world wide phenomenon. This is the Blogosphere.
Through the class we read two perceptive articles on what the blogosphere is and how it has influenced the online society. I have found these two exerpts to reflect what I have come to think of blogging and it's ranking in our society. In "The Internet Is Not Killing 0ff Conversation But Actively Encouraging It" by Douglas Rushkoff, the focus is on how the "news" and informatively biased material we see in not only weblogs, but in other internet feeds do nothing but give us as people a means of social interaction in which to make conversation.
The other article our classed took a look at was not as broad as Rushkoff, but just as biased. Neale Talbot's "Weblogs (Good God Y’all) What are They Good For? (Absolutely Nothing- Say it again)", spoke only on, well... the blog standpoint of things. Talbot argues that the concept and use of blogs is over hyped and should not be viewed as a revolution. The author backs up this statement by saying weblogs aren't anything new, and that they've been around awhile. "The only difference of late has been the addition of personal
commentary and history into the posts, an obvious influence
from the equally old Web journals" is what Talbot says.
I believe both of these authors are on to something, and that together they summarize what the blogosphere is. While I am convinced by both authors, I have to say I'm more so with what Talbot was conveying. One of the things Talbot says pretty much sums up how I feel about the blogosphere. That would be when he says "Weblogs are the next geocities" I love the connection here. Overall, people just want to be heard, and blogs gives equal opportunity to everyone who wants to do so. In a sense though, this can be seen as what makes it so unique. There are so many things to be talked about. Appeal and promotion are how most things become acknowledged is it not.
I myself maybe in that category. I can't really say. Although I don't think the blogosphere will be eradicated, or anything of the sort, anytime soon.
Krolik, John. “Recap: Magic 101, Cavs 95 (Or the Time The Cavs Lost Three Games in a Row).” Cavs: The Blog.21 Feb, 2010
Rushkoff, Douglas. “The Internet Is Not Killing 0ff Conversation But Actively Encouraging It”. We’ve Got Blog. MA: Perseus Pub 2002. 116-118.
Talbot, Neale. “Weblogs (Good God Y’all) What are They Good For? (Absolutely Nothing- Say it again)” . We’ve Got Blog . MA: Rerseus Pub, 130-132