I enjoyed reading, and pondering, a few different blogs over the weekend. One blog that got me thinking was Remaining Relevant, which pointed me to a post by Nabil Maynard, about how a blog can serve as a surrogate home on the Internet:
Blogs (whether it’s a myspace page, friendster, facebook, blogger, or a stand alone site like this one) are often our first real forays into being a creator or participant in the virtual arena. It provides an anchor point where they are free to express themselves however they want (to let their guards down, figuratively speaking). People may move on or away from these blogs or pages, but their time spent with their own space to create and express themselves will continue to have an effect on them throughout their other endeavors.
I found myself nodding when I read this. For me this blog has become a venue, a place where I can do certain things – write out and share my thoughts, play, experiment, and have visitors and chat or discuss things with them. It centres me in the blogosphere – I read lots of other blogs, and when I comment on them I comment as me, CW, from here. I find that having my own blog has actually encouraged me to comment. I don’t think it is just because I want to leave a pointer to my own blog – it is almost as though I feel I somehow have more credibility because I’m a part of the ongoing conversation, too.
I think I’ve alluded to the fact that I still harbour the notion that some bloggers are way more worthy than others, but I think I’m slowly getting over this “I’m not worthy” feeling the more I write and participate and get to know other bloggers. (Even if I do still get excited when famous bloggers stop by – and I find myself unable to respond in an articulate manner 😉 ) (Some bloggers are far better writers than others, but that’s another issue.)
Remaining Relevant ends her post by suggesting that Web 2.0 reflects how we are building on and forming communities online. “I[t] all just serves to confirm for me that to not have a blog-gish or forum-ish presence is an equivalent of closing your doors and heading out of town.”
4 Comments
Can I just say that I hate the term Web 2.0. It’s simply a marketing label.
I don’t hate the term, as such, but I agree it’s more meaningful as a marketing term than anything else. I’m amused by the debates and hoo-ha its use has stirred, too…
When it comes to commenting, I’m reticent, even when a post raises questions or leads me to think more on a subject. I’ve never considered that having my own blog might give me more credibility when commenting, in fact, I thought if people visited my blog it may give me less credibility. So thanks for waking me up a little.
My attitude is changing and I’m feeling more comfortable with both blogging and commenting. The more I do it, the more connected I feel and the better able I am to articulate, so it’s becoming easier and more rewarding. And it’s only taken three and a half years! 🙂
As for Web 2.0, so long as the technology’s accessible, I don’t care what it’s called. 🙂
Hi Dee, I mean credibility in the sense that I’m in this too (ie I blog as well). Apart from that I’m sure I have as little (or as much) credibility as the next person 😉 I’m under no illusions that I’m particularly well-informed or anything, most times I think I just have a large vocabulary!
Like you, the more I do this the easier it gets! 🙂
As for Web 2.0, I agree – it doesn’t matter what it’s called. It’s too easy to get hung up on labels.