Further to yesterday's post, I have been taken gently to task by Jonathan Plutchok (http://jonathanstoolbar.blogspot.com/), not so much for my characterisations with which he broadly agrees, as with the labels (Blog 1.0 and Blog 2.0) used to denote them.
Jonathan contends that the term Blog 1.0 connotes a lack of quality inasmuch as it implies "an early, primitive form" of blogging. He is quite right, of course. Although I tried to show that the terms were not intended as judgements on the respective merits of the two categories, the fact is that the expressions Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 do carry very strong connotations of "inferior" and "superior", and so any variation on that theme will inevitably be viewed in the same light.
By way of an alternative, Jonathan suggests "personal" as a description of the first category, i.e. the sort of blog I try to write, and "purposeful" to describe his kind of blog which he defines as being "for more outward-directed purposes, whether for money..., to inform, or to persuade (according to a political, religious, economic, or other agenda)".
I would certainly go along with that.
Since I last posted, I read somewhere that personal bloggers, to borrow Jonathan's term, are migrating in droves to the Social Web, i.e. Facebook and other incarnations. I have to admit here and now that I just don't "get" this new development on the Web. Perhaps I am too old, perhaps I just don't want to go down this particular road, perhaps I am scared of it taking up too much of my time when I have still to reach retirement age. Whatever the reason, "social networking" is a bridge too as far as I'm concerned, just as sophisticated tools like SDL and TRADOS are not for me in my professional life as a translator.
Barnaby to Facebook: Drop Dead!
No comments:
Post a Comment