Wednesday, October 18, 2006
On Links and Language
This is perhaps more a personal pet peeve than anything else, but I've noticed a trend lately in which bloggers refer obliquely to individuals or events, yet leave out identifying names, links, and details. I'm unclear why people do this. To protect the innocent? To avoid accusations that they're picking on anyone? Either way, it leaves me feeling as if there's a massive in-joke going on and I'm the uncool high school kid looking in from the outside.
So as not to be accused of doing the same thing: A recent example is Walt Crawford's "Sophisticated Argumentation" post, in which he takes an unnamed speaker at an unnamed conference to task for language used in a slide about an unnamed topic. Until one of Walt's commenters revealed details this morning, I had no idea who or what he was talking about -- which left me unable to draw my own conclusions, read others' takes, or go back to the original source to get a little bit of context.
As librarians, we really should appreciate the power of information, context, and conversation; oblique comments enable none of the above. I read blogs to keep informed and to get the benefit of others' insights. In cases like these, I either know what/who the blogger is referring to, in which case the deliberate vagueness doesn't matter -- or I don't, in which case the post means absolutely nothing.
So as not to be accused of doing the same thing: A recent example is Walt Crawford's "Sophisticated Argumentation" post, in which he takes an unnamed speaker at an unnamed conference to task for language used in a slide about an unnamed topic. Until one of Walt's commenters revealed details this morning, I had no idea who or what he was talking about -- which left me unable to draw my own conclusions, read others' takes, or go back to the original source to get a little bit of context.
As librarians, we really should appreciate the power of information, context, and conversation; oblique comments enable none of the above. I read blogs to keep informed and to get the benefit of others' insights. In cases like these, I either know what/who the blogger is referring to, in which case the deliberate vagueness doesn't matter -- or I don't, in which case the post means absolutely nothing.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Have you really noticed a trend, or was it just the one post on Walt Crawford's blog, and maybe a few familial references here and there?
The blind reference was deliberate, as I was bemoaning a situation, not specifically piling on the particular speaker. Once the speaker was "outed" by a commenter, I provided appropriate links.
As it happens, I may have misinterpreted the reporting of the speech--but it did lead to a long and interesting, if contentious, comment thread.
Your point is well taken, though. Still, sometimes blind items are useful, not for "in crowd" reasons (I'm not part of any in crowd!) but to avoid focusing a discussion on the specifics of one example. This may not have been such a case.
As it happens, I may have misinterpreted the reporting of the speech--but it did lead to a long and interesting, if contentious, comment thread.
Your point is well taken, though. Still, sometimes blind items are useful, not for "in crowd" reasons (I'm not part of any in crowd!) but to avoid focusing a discussion on the specifics of one example. This may not have been such a case.
Karen: You're right, "trend" was probably too strong; that should teach me to post when I'm annoyed.
Walt: I picked on you because I've been confused by other recent blind refs in your posts -- see for example:
http://walt.lishost.org/?p=379
"Separately, I’m seeing (a few) more examples of childish syntax/repetitive structure (made mild fun of in the preceding paragraph) becoming a hallmark of (certain high-profile) Library 2.0 advocates."
Certain who? Again, if I don't know who you're referring to, it makes no sense, and if I do, I can choose either to be annoyed on their behalf or to nod sagely and agree happily at being part of the "in crowd." If you're talking about a given example, then I don't know that a useful discussion can occur without access to the language you refer to in its original context.
Again, though, pet peeve. And, I agree that your "sophisticated argumentation" post led to a great comment thread, but would argue that the comments only got more interesting once the speaker in question was "outed."
Walt: I picked on you because I've been confused by other recent blind refs in your posts -- see for example:
http://walt.lishost.org/?p=379
"Separately, I’m seeing (a few) more examples of childish syntax/repetitive structure (made mild fun of in the preceding paragraph) becoming a hallmark of (certain high-profile) Library 2.0 advocates."
Certain who? Again, if I don't know who you're referring to, it makes no sense, and if I do, I can choose either to be annoyed on their behalf or to nod sagely and agree happily at being part of the "in crowd." If you're talking about a given example, then I don't know that a useful discussion can occur without access to the language you refer to in its original context.
Again, though, pet peeve. And, I agree that your "sophisticated argumentation" post led to a great comment thread, but would argue that the comments only got more interesting once the speaker in question was "outed."
Hi Rachel,
For some reason, I missed your response. The other example you cite is one where I cannot/will not provide the direct example for reasons I consider overwhelming.
But I do hear you, and I'll try to cut down on blind items.
Here's a thought: If you see a blind reference in a W.a.r. item, think of it as one of those W.a.r. items that's too random to be taken seriously.
For some reason, I missed your response. The other example you cite is one where I cannot/will not provide the direct example for reasons I consider overwhelming.
But I do hear you, and I'll try to cut down on blind items.
Here's a thought: If you see a blind reference in a W.a.r. item, think of it as one of those W.a.r. items that's too random to be taken seriously.
I'm behind in reading feeds so sorry for the late, late comment...I keep my blog pretty anonymous because I talk about work. I know employers will search the internets for websites/photos/myspace for job applicants, and I'm trying to protect myself. For a primer on how to mess up your life by identifying specific people by in a blog, refer to dooce.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
