Words....words...words

So..we're back to Hamlet and his famous "words, words, words" soliloquy for this post.  I thought that this Shakespeare thing would be a novelty, but it is kind of fun and usually pretty relevant.

Our readings and work for the second part of week 2 have really focused on what makes this particular activity (blogging) useful.  How are the words I am writing and sharing now different than in a discussion in a classroom or in a formal paper.  To start, I have really enjoyed reading about hyperlinked writing.  We seem to think that this is something entirely new to have writing where readers can choose how much to engage by clicking on a link.  However, I would argue that historians have been doing this for YEARS with the footnote.  Any reader of real historical works will admit that you do not follow every footnote, you only follow those that are interesting to you.  It gives the reader the freedom to click on links or follow footnotes that give additional information or keep moving on if you have enough background knowledge.  Of course, you always say in discussions that you read every footnote.  :)

I think the value of this sharing, both blogging and hyperlinking, is that it allows you to share quickly.  So, there is not need to worry about having a whole thought and going through a huge editing process.  It also encourages a community of thought.  Put something thought provoking out and let others help you develop the idea.  I am reminded, in some ways, of Montaigne's essays.  P.S. - How great is Gutenberg and other public access resources?  I can link you to an author's words immediately and not have to worry about you tracking down a book.  It also encourages transparency because I can link out directly to my evidence in an argument.  No more worries of me distorting the facts.

I think the important take away here is that this is an entirely different experience.  It should not replace face to face conversations in a classroom but should be an additional experience for students.  In my own experience, i have had the opportunity of interacting with folks I have never met face to face in Twitter land.  It gives you a whole new audience of peers outside of geographic location for thoughtful engagement.

Additionally, the kind of writing that you do is different and encourages a new way of orienting your mind toward writing.  This blog encourages us to see this writing as a way of changing the way we think about writing.  Blogging can link the written word to the visual (as demonstrated with pictures and hyperlinks).  The two do not have to be seen separately.  Additionally, an author does not have to be nearly as linear with a written blog.  You don't have to worry about a beginning, middle, and end.  Some authors have even gone as far as to suggest that the way we read has changed and that hyperlinks actually can provide clarity to certain statements such as using new net speak like plurked.

A similar blog encourages us to see our role as audience member different.  It is a Marxian realignment of reading.  This process is no longer an author (authority) who knows everything telling a story to a passive reader.  We can be active producers of content and knowledge.  We can even comment and tweet to engage the author directly.  Think how much more dynamic a classroom can become.  I think that this can encourage a culture of transparency where a reader can hold an author accountable for something he or she said.

However, we still must keep our eyes out and constantly be wary of what we are fed in this online world.  Just because someone can produce knowledge does not mean that it is quality or that it is even true.  I worry about this a lot given the recent controversies around fake news.

P.S. - Should you choose to follow that last link, check out the fundraising campaign that The Guardian is trying to do.  As we move to a producer driven communication system, how can traditional media outlets be expected to survive?