Okay so I’m always going to be interested in an article that emphasises the value of blogging, given my specific research interest, but I think the article from the Guardian on Tuesday informing businesses that they should ignore bloggers at their peril, has some merit (light as it is). In a paper I’m currently writing, I’m facing the fact that increasingly, the term “blogging” is becoming what Bruce Sterling calls an archaelogism – a word that had meaning for the revolutionaries, but what it has come to represent is now so mainstream as to be virtually transparent: blogging architecture and its by-products (RSS, Trackbacks, etc) have been so seamlessly integrated into personalised systems as to be inseparable from them as distinct technologies. Nevertheless, the impact and reach of blogging is unchanged, regardless of whether bloggers and blog readers are aware of the fact that they are participating in a blogging culture. More to the point, the significance of perception is something that grows in importance in the post-marketing era. Organisations that ignore the messages disseminated through blogging architecture will suffer, and this is a symptom of growing consumer (produser?) empowerment.
In other (somewhat related) news, there’s a useful post on a Unifying Theory of Web 2.0, that nicely captures the meaning of Web 2.0: that the intelligence attributed to the web (web 2.0) arises from us as we begin to communicate.