JosiahQ has been hosting something of an interesting discussion regarding Doug Wilson's thoughts on blogging. I've responded over there a bit, but in writing my next response I found that I'd gone on long enough to post one of my own. So here it is. Read the discussion on Josiah's blog if you want to have any idea what's going on.
My basic point is that I feel much more competant to judge the value of blogging than Wilson is or probably ever will be. Why? Because I've done the reading.
Shirky.com. Slashdot. Wired. Julian Dibbell. Mindjack. Josh Ellis. MetaFilter. Kuro5hin. Joichi Ito. Penny Arcade. Demonology 101. Mac Hall. MegaTokyo. Sluggy Freelance. Red vs. Blue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
I've played the games. Star Wars Galaxies. Anarchy Online. Battlefield 1942. Diablo. StarCraft. WarCraft. Baldur's Gate. System Shock. X-Wing. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis. Fallout. Day of the Tentacle. Sam and Max Hit the Road.
I could keep going if I wanted to, but I think that's enough. I have been heavily and self-consciously involved in wired culture for the better part of a decade. I have spent countless hours discussing, debating, and writing about the nature of online communities, the effect of email on language, and the metaphysics of the avatar. I have written extensive essays on the fate of ethics in virtual worlds, the importance of free content, and the obsolescence of current intellectual property models.
I have absolutely no confidence that Doug Wilson is more than passingly familiar with any of the above cultural artifacts. I therefore have absolutely no confidence that Doug Wilson has anything of value to say about the Internet that exceeds the value that I and others just like me have to say about it.
The Internet is not simply another form of written communication. I hold that the hyperlink is as significant a development as the invention of the printing press. It changes everything. The Internet offers a chance for publishing to be an interactive medium, not a broadcast medium. Trying to say that it's simply another form of writing simply shows how little time you've spent with the Internet.
I don't really care whether Wilson is right or not. It doesn't matter to me. I simply do not value his opinion in this particular area due to the fact that he doesn't know enough about it to offer an intelligent opinion. In exactly the same way that forming a strong opinion about Wilson after reading one and a half issues of Credenda would be wrong-headed, so is attempting to say anything significant about the Internet without spending sufficient time with the material. Wilson hasn't done this. Or if he has, he's gone out of his way to convince us otherwise. Until such time as he's done the reading, I'll ask him to kindly keep his uninformed opinions to himself.
Posted by ryan at September 18, 2003 04:10 PM | TrackBackin the letters of our generation: w3rd
Posted by: JosiahQ at September 18, 2003 04:57 PMI would disagree that simply having done a lot of things online and played a lot of video games necessarily makes one an expert with more right to comment on the blogging phenomena than Wilson. For example, I can think of plenty of script kiddies who visit the sites that you have visited and played video games but who's opinion on the internet is no more worthwhile than the opinion of my one of my technologically clueless cousins. I think the argument could even be made (though I'm not going to attempt it here, maybe I'll do it on my blog), that being so involved in the online geek culture makes it impossible to really step back and be objective as to the value of the internet and online communication technologies.
I'm a geek. I like the internet--have been online longer than you have. I think that it's a great tool, particularly as an alternate source of information outside of the traditional power structures. It's also a great avenue for communication. That said, I still hold that at it's heart, the internet is still just a form of communication, and with every other form of communication, it has it's benefits, and it has it's drawbacks, and we need not pat ourselves on the backs and say what hot stuff we are just because we have been online a long time. You're looking at the good stuff, Wilson is looking at the bad stuff, why not just admit that the reality is somewhere between the two?
Posted by: kathryn at September 18, 2003 11:08 PMAll of which is beside the point. Ryan did not say that he had simply "done a lot of things online and played a lot of video games." His qualifications, for which these activities form a necessary basis, are found in the next paragraph. "I have spent countless hours discussing, debating, and writing about the nature of online communities, the effect of email on language, and the metaphysics of the avatar. I have written extensive essays on the fate of ethics in virtual worlds, the importance of free content, and the obsolescence of current intellectual property models."
You're right, merely logging in hours of geek time does not make one an internet expert; however, recognizing the possibility that there may be a difference between the internet and other forms of communication and then investing the time to investigate and study this difference, does. Ultimately, it may turn out that I disagree with Ryan's conclusions, but, for now, if I needed an informed opinion on this subject, he's one of the first people I'd turn to.
Posted by: Kevin at September 18, 2003 11:48 PMActually Kevin, you proved my point. Whether or not he, or anyone else, spent a lot of time online doing geeky things is really beside the point. What matters is whether one has considered the philosophical implications of technology. Thus, it doesn't exactly matter whether Wilson is as geeky as Ryan, because I am quite sure that Wilson has considered the philosophical implications as well.
The issue is a philosophical one, and I would argue that as such, geekness isn't a prerequisite to entering the discussion. There is something to be said for outsiders' evaluation of our approach to technology (and we don't even know whether Wilson is an outsider). Whether or not you, Ryan, or I agree with what Wilson has to say doesn't matter, I'm just arguing for his right to say it and for that opinion to be considered as part of the discussion.
Posted by: kathryn at September 20, 2003 12:22 AMYou've got to be kidding. The issue is indeed a philosophical one, one which I have spent countless hours wrestling with, and one which I would bet ridiculous amounts that Wilson isn't even aware of, given the fact that he barely seems aware of the philosophical discussions surrounding even his core issues. The man is a brilliant rhetorician, but a downright lousy philosopher.
As the issue is indeed philosophical, there are, like in every other philosophical issue, certain concepts, ideas, discussions, and texts of which anyone who wishes to participate needs to be at least aware. As I cannot conceive that Wilson is aware of them, much less has actually studied them, I don't feel the need to give him the time of day.
Sure, Wilson has the right to say his bit. He has the right to say whatever he damn well pleases. But he doesn't have the right to expect me or anyone else to listen. He has offered no indication that his opinions are in any way conversant with the broader discussion, only that he has them. I feel little compulsion to listen to Wilson about things like the church and the family, things about which I will grudgingly admit he is coversant (as a pastor and father, he has won the right to express his opinions about the church and family and have them be heard). Then, all of a sudden, he wants to hold forth on an issue he really doesn't know anything about, an issue with which I have spent the past seven years coming to terms. Now tell me: why should I give a rip what Wilson thinks about the Internet in general or blogging in particular?
Posted by: ryan at September 20, 2003 12:53 AM