Blogging Outloud: Shifts in Public Voice (Sarah Houghton’s take on it)
October 1st, 2005 by Sarah Houghton-Jandanah boyd (University of California at Berkeley, Yahoo, apophenia) spoke to a full room for Saturday’s opening session.
She started by telling us that she was a bit disappointed by yesterday’s keynote from Roy Tennant encouraging us to regain our rightful place as the guardians of the world’s knowledge (note: that was not my take on Roy’s talk at all, perhaps she heard a different Roy than I did). She told us that library hegemony (in the form of this gatekeeper identity) is no better than Google hegemony and that we should not subscribe to the same closed-fisted elitism that we criticize Google for. The crowd’s reaction to this upfront criticism was mixed…many arms were crossed and lips were pursed. Personally, I found this honesty refreshing and telling of how the public (especially the young) probably views libraries and librarians. Sad, but true.
To explain her idea of what blogs are, boyd compared blogs to paper. Some people use paper to write grocery lists, print photographs, keep journals, write novels, etc. Blogs work the same way—there are many different species of content.
boyd criticized Gorman’s “Revenge of the Blog People” as inflammatory and uneducated. She emphasized that blogs are not just diaries and amateur journalism (the two examples given to discredit blogs and bloggers). Some bloggers do use their blogs for journalism…and quite a bit of blogging acts as an alternative commentary on issues and events. She also refuted Gorman’s criticism of blogs as being interactive and allowing commentary. The commentary mechanism of blogs is what makes blogs unique—allowing anyone to have a voice.
Blogs are not about publishing; blogs are about sharing. Blogs allow you to share your thoughts and ideas without having to chop them up to fit the ideas of the editors of a printed publication.
Blogs allow people to find others who have things in common with them. As such, they put themselves out in a very visible public space. Bloggers view the benefits of being out in public as outweighing the risks.
boyd also noted that blogs are saturating search engines. If your blog is prolific, your individual posts become top search results (above published works and other prominent websites) simply because more people are linking to the blog posts and viewing them than the other types of resources.
She also discussed memes—the tendency of one idea that’s important to one blogger being replicated on blog after blog after blog. She then tied this to the relatively new remix culture (fan fiction, mixing political statements with music tracks). Remixing is a new method of expression and commentary, which she termed cultural consumption and communication….not necessarily “art.”
She closed by saying that Google and remixers and bloggers are not the enemies of librarians. We all share the same goal of distributing information. Let’s remember that.
October 1st, 2005 at 3:16 pm
I take Danah’s criticism (re: librarians’ gatekeeper complex) to heart; we all suffer from a bit of myopia, I suppose. But it was hard to hear given that her current company, Yahoo, is heavily lobbying WIPO for a new IP right, a broadcasters/webcasters right that would add an additional layer of rights to content lasting 50 years.
I understand her point is that the individuals at these search companies have a lot of the same goals as we librarians do. At our level (the chickens), we can accomplish a lot by collaborating to build better tools and better ways of integrating. But it’s hard not to be concerned about the larger goals of these for-profit companies, particularly when they are fundamentally at odds with what I believe is in the best interests of the public. So, there, I’ve got a gatekeeper complex, too.
October 1st, 2005 at 8:44 pm
I don’t think that’s a gatekeeper complex. I had this talk with danah at one point. There’s a difference between a gatekeeper and a guardian. We have legitimate concerns about consolidating intellectual property in one for-profit company, no matter how virtuous their stated goals. I don’t get why when Microsoft does it they are Satan incarnate and when it’s Google they get a free pass.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:12 am
Oh, i don’t mean to give anyone a free pass. Over the summer, i compared the major search companies to evil nation states of the 20th century. This is definitely tongue-in-cheek but also gets to some of my general frustrations.
K.G. - i definitely respect your thoughts re: guardians but i also don’t share them. I also don’t believe in consolidating IP anywhere but that’s not what Google.
Claire - i’d love to know more about the WIPO bit - i actually don’t know much about this at all. Could you send me info offblog? I’m not in agreement with everything that goes down in these companies, nor am i in agreement with everything that goes down in government. But i also believe in working to steer the beast in people-centric ways.
Please please please tell me things that are going on inside the beasts that i can’t see. And please blog about them. Again, checks and balances.
October 2nd, 2005 at 1:38 am
Here’s a crib of the talk. I didn’t clean it up but it might be useful anyhow!