Bathroom self-portraits

megnut self-portrait, [february 28, 2002]I was ready to assemble a photo exhibit for posting here entitled, "SXSW Badge Photo Self-Portraits, Non-Qualifying Entries" but then several things happened. 1) I went to upload a photo and discovered that, "We are no longer accepting electronically-submitted photographs." 2) The series of photos looked too naked, posed, ego-y and conceited, or something along those lines to post. 3) Well that was about it, just those two things.

So instead I added some of the photos to my About page, since there aren't many current photos of me online (poor old webcam, when the software starts working again, or I reinstall it, I'll turn you back on.) My eyes are blue in real life, but they appear kind of green in these pictures due to the low light in my bathroom (scene of the portraits) and Photoshop auto level correction. And that's totally cool because I've always wanted green eyes, green being my favorite color and all.

A clothing dream

Here's what I'd like: a blanket with sleeves. Do such things exist? I enjoy reading in bed and on the sofa, and I always go beneath the covers to do so, but the top part of my body is exposed, and I get cold. Ideally I'd like to stay beneath the covers, but then it's hard to hold my book. So I thought, why not a blanket with sleeves? It would sort of be like wearing your jacket backwards, the blanket would rest on top and your arms could stick out and hold on to your book while you stay snug underneath. It'd be just the thing for a cold drafty San Francisco apartment, don't you think?

More blogging put-downs

Of course, my piece from Monday wouldn't be complete without a look-back at My Ass is a Weblog, the first pooh-poohing of the fad of weblogging from 11/99:

But how can you not boggle at the level of self-delusion, of self-infatuation, it takes to declare that weblogs are going kill off traditional journalism? That the concept will be alive and well a decade from now? That weblog readership will increase a hundred-fold in that time? That they're an art form?

The strange thing about that piece, upon re-reading, is that Greg mentions some of the same fads I mentioned, and he even refers to "the fireworks" that surrounded them. Odd. I didn't read his article (again) until after I wrote mine. I wonder if somehow those ideas were buried in the recesses of my mind from when I first read it in 1999? Maybe that's how plagiarism happens, you just lose track of where all the bits come from and the thoughts seem original when they're not. Or maybe we're both just brilliant and great minds think alike [note for the humor impaired: that's a joke.]? I did think my fireworks analogy was a bit cheesy though, it was just the only thing I could come up with at the time.

The big blogging fad

In the past few weeks, as I've been rather quiet on this site, there's been an explosion in weblog coverage by various news sources, including: Wired's Blah, Blah, Blah and Blog; Canada's National Post 'Bloggers' emerge from internet underground; Henry Jenkins (director of the Program in Comparative Media Studies at MIT), Blog This; three Guardian articles (1, 2, 3); Andrew Sullivan's, A Blogger Manifesto; and today's New York Times article, Is Weblog Technology Here to Stay or Just Another Fad?.

Goodness, but that's a lot of coverage in a short amount of time. Unfortunately most of it fails, once again, to penetrate or probe in any sort of meaningful way. Of especial disappointment to me is the New York Times' piece asking whether blogging is just another fad, not because I'm afraid of the answer but because I think the question is so meaningless. Fad, especially as it relates to anything Internet, is a terribly loaded, and potentially dismissive, word. And its use in this instance precludes a more interesting examination of where the hype is coming from. Bob Tedeschi, the article's author, asks, "[I]s it simply that in this, the Internet's fallow period, anything even remotely buzzworthy is given more of a spotlight than it deserves. Is the Weblog, in other words, a fad that is destined to fade?"

Previous Internet fads, which had all the longevity of a firecracker (the expectant hush, a boom and burst of light, and then nothing), included Portals, Vortals, Push, B2B, B2C, and the whole "dot-com" thing. But those fads emerged in a top-down fashion — they were created by marketers and analysts making big pronouncements because they had something to offer or gain by doing so. The weblog hype, for the most part, has come from the bottom up, from the people actually doing the weblogging. Sure the tool makers/bloggers (Dave Winer and LiveJournal come to mind) have spent a great deal of time proselytizing, but the majority of the weblog buzz has come from the individuals themselves. As the amount of bloggers has grown, so has the collective noise.

The term fad describes something that's popular for a short period of time. Whether blogging will be sustained, and more importantly, continue to evolve, remains to be seen, but I believe it has a greater chance of success than previous Internet fads because of its grassroots beginning. The increase in professional media coverage simply demonstrates an increased awareness of the weblog phenomenon. And whether that's due to the dearth of more deserving fads, I cannot say.

[Snarky aside: The best part of this article was the analyst from Forrester who, "predicts the technology will be adopted by the big portal sites for reselling to their users." Portals + Weblogs = Two Great Fads that Taste Great Together! [Additional aside: Big portal sites? Who's left besides Yahoo!?]]

And speaking of professional media coverage, the "blogs-are-not-journalism" camp is quick to point out that capital J journalism is focused on researching and presenting facts. Journalism is concerned with credibility and to that end employs editors and fact-checkers to ensure that the public receives a valid and informed piece of writing. And yet with a quick glance at the articles above, I see errors — errors that have been continued from one weblog article to the next, the same "facts" repeated over and over. Of course Journalists are informed by previous pieces that have been published on the topic they're writing about, but does that relieve them of their fact-checking obligations?

Take for example this quote from Andrew Sullivan's "A Blogger Manifesto," which ran yesterday in the Sunday Times of London, "Blogger – pioneered and still run by one man, Evan Williams – makes that completely easy". People familiar with Blogger may recall that there were three of us at Pyra when that product was launched. And there were many more folks that poured lots of time and energy into Blogger, at various points in its lifecycle, to create the product that's seen today. It's even mentioned on the Blogger/About the Company page yet I've lost count of the number of articles that have given Evan credit for creating and building Blogger all by himself. I'm not trying to be a brat here, and in fact I've avoided pointing out most of these mistakes as they've occurred because whenever I do I get an inbox full of email saying, basically, "Sit down and shut up, you left Blogger so stop your whining." And perhaps because of that, because some other webloggers and I have not spoken up and pointed out mistakes, these mistruths prevail.

My point is we shouldn't be so quick to say that Journalists get it right and webloggers don't. I think the weblog articles are a good example of the often shallow approach taken by mainstream media towards "quirky" topics and demonstrate that fact-checking may consist of copying "facts" from previous articles on the same topic. Of course, it's easy for me to spot mistakes in these stories because I participated in the events being described. This isn't black or white, fact or opinion, journalism or weblog. We're well into shades of grey, into a fuzzy realm where the distinction between amateur and professional is blurred. Where and how articles are published should not overshadow the examination of the quality and credibility of what's being written.

[Note: the author does not wish any of the above to be construed as Journalism.]

Over at Jason's an interesting and related discussion is taking place.

Thinking about dreams deferred

I've been thinking recently about things I used to want to do or learn that never quite worked out, for any number of reasons. It's funny to look back on some of these things, the longing is still there.

A list of dreams deferred:
– Learn to play the violin (also included bout of learn to play the flute)
– Become a doctor and cure cancer
– Become an astronaut (travel to the moon!)
– Go to the Olympics
    - as a downhill skier
    - as a rower
– make movies (write and film them with my own little camera)
– live in Europe

All hope is not lost on the dream front though, as one long-held dream's status has changed to "realized." In the past week I've received two checks for writing I've done. I can now say I'm a Writer, which is (for most of my life anyway) what I always wanted to be when I grew up.

Announced decrease = increase

Dan writes in the comments on the right, "Whenever you announce that you're cutting back on Megnut, we see an increase in content!" Funny, I was thinking the same thing this morning as I was washing the dishes. I always say that and then write a ton of stuff. Maybe it'll happen this time, but don't hold your breath.

I’m speaking at Etech

I'll be speaking in May at the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference in Santa Clara on the topic, Web Services for the Real World: A User-Centered Examination. If the conference is anything like last fall's P2P and Web Services Conference, it should be packed with great sessions, brilliant speakers, and really interesting attendees.

I was on a high for weeks after the P2P conference; it got my brain buzzing again about all kinds of exciting things, including the ideas for what may be the next big thing in my life. I can't think of a better conference that I've attended, ever, so I have high hopes for "e-tech" (as do others, Cory says, "this con will kick ass"). If it's at all in your budget and is stuff you're interested in, you should check it out.