Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.

trust your instincts

< £ Salon Bloggers & >

	February 15, 2003

METABLOGGING CONT'D: THE CASE FOR GROUP BLOGS (Part 2 of 2) As mentioned below , I think the concept of group blogs on specific topics might greatly expand the audience and use of blogs, provided they met four criteria: The subject matter of the groups would need to be governed by some kind of flexible overall taxonomy, kind of like the Library of Congress index governs the card catalogue and placement of books in a library. Anyone could designate any subject for a group blog, at any level of granularity within that framework, so you might have the following evolving under Science, for example: Science Blog A (x posts, y hits) Blog B (x posts, y hits) Biology Blog C (x posts, y hits) Blog D (x posts, y hits) Genetics Blog E (x posts, y hits) Blog F (x posts, y hits) Genetics - NZ Blog G (x posts, y hits) The overall taxonomy, and postings to each blog, would have to be moderated with a very light touch.  Anyone could start up a group blog at any level of granularity they wanted (subject to the owner's, sponsor's or server owner's willingness to pay for the space).  The moderator would be able to recategorize that blog under the overall taxonomy, and would be able to reject posts irrelevant to the subject (with guidance on a more appropriate place to post it), but that's all. The taxonomy would evolve in granularity as required by the subjects chosen by those setting up the blogs, so if there's a demand for an Auckland NZ Genetics blog and an Auckland NZ Biology blog, that would be accommodated in the taxonomy (any good taxonomist can handle this). You would need to be able to browse the taxonomy, and easily enroll (i.e. get permission for your first post from the group blog owner) even if you don't have your own blog or website and want to post as a guest, and read and subscribe to any blog in the list. You'd be able to see how active each blog is (see above) and any blog that fell below a certain volume threshold would be delisted. Now here's where the advantage of technology comes in. Any blog post would be simultaneously posted to a personal blog (if you have one) and to the applicable subject's group blog(s), perhaps using something like the 'category' feature of Userland at a macro-level. To avoid wasting space, one of the simultaneous posts would be real (HTML sitting on a server) and all the rest would be virtual (merely a series of links). So those with pride of ownership would still have their own blog while still getting exposure for their ideas on the (usually more widely-read) group blogs. What do you think? Right balance between anarchy (e.g. Usenet) and straitjacket? Overengineered? Just not personal enough? Not what blogging is about? Google would already do this if you could filter by date? Anyone from Userland in the audience? 7:56:23 PM  trackback []  comment []

ON SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Russell Baker, writing in TomPaine.com , illustrates how dangerous it is to have a president or prime minister who is not up on the lessons of history or the principles of democracy. One of these is the principle of separation of church and state. Baker, listing some important questions for journalists and the press corps to ask Bush about his "faith based initiatives", saves the most important 'til last: Can you explain, in your own words, the concept of separation of church and state? Are you for eliminating that? It would, of course, be kind of unfair to spring this question on Bush without giving him the chance to prepare, him not being exactly renowned for speaking articulately, or for that matter coherently or accurately, off the cuff. And since he probably doesn't know the principle anyway, and in the interest of public service and higher education, I thought I'd provide some answers for him, in cue-card format in sound-bite length, so that both Bush and CNN can digest them. Insert drawls and smirks at your discretion. Here we go: For millennia, democratic countries around the world have struggled to ensure that, even in countries with a dominant religion, religious beliefs and organizations are not able to override democratic constitutional principles and practices. Specifically, that means government and public institutions such as schools must not promote one religion over another government and schools must not promote a religious life over a secular life (one unconnected with any religion), or a secular life over a religious life excessive entanglements between government or public institutions, and religion or religious organizations must be avoided government and public institutions must not coerce, or enacts laws that coerce, citizens to support or participate in any religion or religious activity government and public institutions must not interfere with private free exercise of religion, provided that exercise does not interfere with the rights of others government policies and actions, at home and abroad, must not discriminate on the basis of people's and nations' religious beliefs, provided those beliefs are themselves not discriminatory and do not violate recognized human rights This principle is embedded in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and rulings of the American judiciary have supported the above interpretation of it. This principle has served our country well since its establishment, and countries that do not have similar principles entrenched in their laws and constitutions have proven to be fragile, intolerant, riven by internal civil strife, and sometimes even ungovernable I fully support this principle and will in future ensure that faith-based initiatives, the meddling by governments in classroom activities and curricula, discrimination against international family planning activities in foreign aid programs, and preferential access to all levels of government by certain religions and religious figures, will be immediately curtailed (oh, well, we can always dream about this last one; education takes time) 2:52:57 PM  trackback []  comment []

METABLOGGING CONT'D: THE CASE FOR GROUP BLOGS Last week I posted some hints to make your blog more successful. I've noticed that some blogs have multiple posters/authors and that got me thinking: do group blogs make more sense than individual blogs? Maybe I'm more schizophrenic in my interests than most bloggers (though from what I've seen I doubt it) but I post on a host of subjects - politics, the arts, economics, business, environment, science.  I faithfully sort these into categories per Userland's instructions, but I don't post enough on any category to warrant separate blogs on each. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to enroll in public, group blogs on each subject, and post to them, where all the readers of that blog will be interested in all the posts to it? On our company intranet, we have an invention called homespaces , where our people can subscribe to news and contributed knowledge on any of over 100 business subjects. Problem is, the discussion databases attached to these homespaces are never used. I attribute this to the lack of time for any discourse that isn't strictly related to a specific project, more than the awkwardness of discussion group threads. For that reason, I don't think replacing the discussion databases with blogs would work for our company. But back to us: Bloggers would appear to have lots of time to expound on subjects that interest them, so group blogs might work in our environment, since they offer these potential advantages: A wider audience for new bloggers who haven't yet built up their own audience (i.e. most of us) Accommodate guest postings by people with something to say who don't have their own blogs (e.g. experts, celebrities) Might attract attention and subscription from experts, politicians, business leaders, journalists, others who haven't discovered blogs because they're so unfocused and disorganized (the architecture that is, not the people or the posts!) It seems to me that for this to work, the group blogs would need to have four attributes. I'll describe them in my next post. 12:14:03 PM  trackback []  comment []

WANT INTELLIGENT POLITICAL DISCOURSE? Then stop whatever you are doing and read this, an extremely long and utterly engrossing six-poster free-for-all comment thread responding to Alas, a Blog on whether liberals should have, and should in future, vote Democrat or Green, and when and why. This is blogging of the highest order. 4:18:12 AM  trackback []  comment []

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT   How to Save the World's Fearful Predictions for the next 18 months: Iraq: Bush will attack Iraq sometime between Feb.19 and Feb.26. The attack will last no longer than 72 hours. The "collateral damage" will be a death toll of 50,000 civilians, up to a million maimed or injured, and millions more left homeless. Anarchy, disease and famine will set in, in that order, within three months. Bush will declare victory and announce a new regime within two weeks of the attack. He will also initially deny reports of civilian devastation, and when (in a few months) the truth comes out, he will attempt to justify it, since it will no longer be possible to say whether containment of Saddam would have worked instead of war. The West: With the media muted and fixated on the aerial visuals, U.S. response will be grimly supportive, passive and resigned. After huge protests in the days leading up to the war, during which protesters will be harrassed, hurt, arrested and accused of treason, the protests will dwindle to a few die-hards, since the war will be "over" and the damage already done. Rest of the World: Islamic fundamentalists will topple the governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, and several other states in bloody fashion, creating more terrorist havens and less stable oil supply than before the war. A jihad against the West will be declared, but there will be only a few small, disorganized attacks in the Americas or Europe. Americans will sheepishly dismantle their plastic-and-duct-tape house condoms and put them away until Bush's next war. The main attacks will be against Israel, which will fend them off by threatening, but not actually using, nuclear weapons. A new cold war stand-off will arise in the Mid-East, with suicide bombing continuing, but, fearing nuclear attack, Arab states will stop taking credit for the bombings and overtly supporting the bombers. Bin Laden, the big winner in the conflict, will thank God and Bush for achieving much of his dream of a united fundamentalist Muslim Arab world. Korea will do nothing and will not be attacked, nor will it disarm, proving that it can use nuclear deterrence as well as anyone else. Dozens of other countries will quietly try to develop WMD to deter possible attacks from those that already have them. United Nations: In the aftermath of the war, the U.N. and NATO will be declared dead/irrelevant, by Bush's team and by media in many U.N-hostile nations. In hindsight, even the U.S. media will admit that Bush himself killed the U.N. and NATO by simply declaring his willingness to unilaterally start an unprovoked, pre-emptive war without U.N. sanction, and by declaring the U.S. exempt from the U.N.'s International Court of Justice. The U.N. will hang on as a venue for global political debate, negotiation and moral suasion, but be relocated outside the U.S., which will withdraw from it. NATO will simply disappear, its sole function effectively subverted. Five Years from Now: It will all have been for nothing. Finding Iraq ungovernable, the U.S. will keep only a central Iraq "Canal Zone" (incorporating the largest oil fields, refineries and oil ports) and a Kuwait DMZ, and allow the rest of the country to be partitioned into several states, most of which will have governments not unlike Saddam's, and which will become embroiled in civil wars and/or genocide. Some of them will be annexed by Iran, Turkey and/or a new state of Kurdistan. Afghanistan will suffer the same balkanization and/or partial annexation fate. Bin Laden will still be at large, with many places to hide and raise money. Bush will not be re-elected, mainly because with Saddam gone and no other country to credibly and safely attack, voters will refocus on Bush's abominable economic and social agenda and overwhelmingly vote for anyone else. And if Bush does find another country to attack, voters will tire of war and vote him out anyway. You heard it here first, folks. Be on high alert, and act accordingly. 3:17:15 AM  trackback []  comment []

...OR OVER RICHARD PERLE'S MOUTH Roy MacGregor suggests in today's Globe & Mail that perhaps the most useful application of duct tape right now would be "over the channel selector that takes one to CNN." 2:31:13 AM  trackback []  comment []

© Copyright 2004 Dave Pollard. Last update: 19/02/2004; 2:39:31 PM.