If you haven’t been in the middle of the chatter yet, check out what some of us have been talking about over at Harry’s Bull Runnings.
We write “blogs,” but are they always blogs? Actually, in some cases they don’t meet the definition of a blog (keep in mind, this is but one definition, but generally covers the idea of what a blog is). Therefore, for someone who enters into this blogosphere or the world of blogging in general for the first time, I think it can be a bit messy and confusing.
Just to give you an example, if you were a first-time visitor and entered knowing only what the definition of a blog is, wouldn’t you be confused when you tapped into someone’s blogroll and found something other than blogging going on? There are some of us who have true-by-the-definition blogs and some of us who have, for lack of another way to explain it, “information compilation blogs” (I prefer to classify it as ”originality,” as it is using the framework for something other than what it was made), and then too, there are some of us who do a bit of true blogging on information compilation blogs. Therefore, wouldn’t we do a service to the reader if we categorized according to the way we use the blog framework (in lieu of listing all under a blogroll)? Here are a few more thoughts on blogging, as defined in the HNN site…
It may be argued that blogs fall into a separate category because they need to be updated constantly. But what is a blog? It is nothing more than an old fashioned common-place journal in a new setting. It gives the reader the chance to look over the shoulder of a historian who’s reacting daily to events.
Blogs are so new a device on the Internet that no standards have yet evolved to govern their use. Anything goes on a blog. One of the functions that HNN can perform is to help establish standards for blogs. The only way we can do this is by trial and error. Slowly over time as readers provide more and more feedback–readers like you!–we will get a better sense of what should appear in a blog written by a historian and what should not.
Since “digital history” is still pretty much a new frontier, it looks like originality may become rather defining.
Harry Smeltzer
November 5, 2008
I kind of worry about HNN becoming the arbiter of what “should” or “shouldn’t” be on a blog written by historians, and think it rather presumptuous of them to assume the right to do so is somehow divinely theirs. Of course, not being a historian, I don’t have to be concerned with HNN’s “rules”.
cenantua
November 5, 2008
I actually read the definition of blogs as one of several (and I supplied a popup to that effect in the post). I also took the paragraph that I quoted as saying, more or less, that the practice of blogging history, since there are no standards, is wide open. I don’t see HNN as being or becoming the arbiter.
I see digital history, including blogging digital history, as being on the “edge of a new frontier.” Maybe a bit overdramatic, but because of this, I also see opportunities for original work in the practice. I think it will be what we make of it.
cenantua
November 5, 2008
Harry, OK, from your perspective, I read this again, and I see your point. I don’t really believe that HNN should “establish standards for blogs.” I’m also not too comfortable with someone telling me what “should appear in a blog written by a historian and what should not.” I think that stymies creativity… or it could. Blogging is blogging and I can go for a “general definition” of what that is, but I think “standards for blogging history” is a bit much. In terms of what to write and even the number of words in a post, I think history bloggers just need to get an idea of what works for them and that with which they are happy/comfortable. I don’t know, but this might be my feelings about user-centered design clashing with the structure of, say, writing history from the academy for the academy.
brian
November 8, 2008
I like a simpler definition of Blog:
It’s short for Weblog. An online journal. It’s just another website as far as your browser is concerned. Blogs commonly display new entries in reverse chronological order and most encourage interactivity in the form of comments. That’s all that makes them special. As far as HNN setting the standards – even for historians – that’s absurd.
And another thing …
Are we really still on the frontier? Why is that? This technology has been ubiquitous, cheap, and virtually stable for more than a decade. The Valley of the Shadow was piloted in 1993, for crying out loud. If most professional historians haven’t figured this whole internet thing out yet, they probably never will.
And yes, there’s lots of room for innovative use of the medium. You guys are in the middle of it!
cenantua
November 8, 2008
Brian,
I can go with your def of a blog, though I think we’ve shown that we can take blogs in various directions, as to how we use them.
As far as being on the edge of the frontier, o.k., maybe we’ve penetrated the frontier more than the phrase lets on, but the space before us is still vast. Maybe the best part of this is that historians at large haven’t gone into this practice… therefore we can still make our marks as “pioneers.” The technology has been around for a while, but there is still a lot left to do with it, especially in digital history. The best part of this is being in the middle of it and not settling. The potential is incredible and this exchange we are having about this stuff, I think, is fantastic.