« Filmmobile | Main | THIS IS CAKETOWN »




Interesting. There are a lot of profound tensions being played out in the digital space right now, one of the bigger ones being Anonimity v Authority. Everyone wants to protect the right of people to play/use/publish in the digital space anonymously, and yet authority begs of authorship, so that you can actually judge whether someone's work is worthy of paying attention to. Unfortunately, we seem to be experiencing the worst of Anonimity right now, e.g., attacks on various bloggers (Gladwell, for example) and this Wiki situation. Some have posited that the difference in Authority between blogs and traditional journalism is that blogs are meant to be more stream of consciousness (i.e., less Authoritative) while other forms of journalism are supposed to be more researched, thought out and, well, authoritative. This might over-simplify the distinction, b/c it gets tricky when you get into the area of Wikipedia. It's supposed to be authoritative b/c of the open-source nature of the contribution. The more who contribute, the truer it is supposed to become. But as long as people can't be held accountable for their opinions, can it ever truly be authoritative?

The comments to this entry are closed.