Click here

but in general i think this kind of noise – say, anti-wikipedia, anti-blogging, the old-way-was-better – is just farting in a hurricane. wikipedia wins because it is the most useful to people. it is available and it is free and it is accurate enough that it serves the need most people use it for. britannica is neither free nor available, so it loses, tho i’d bet that britannica will win in the long run on accuracy (and quality of writing) – notwithstanding the nature study.

if you want to criticize blogging you might as well criticize talking. it is nothing more than a means of communication; and like conversations in a bar, sometimes you sit beside an idiot who shouts in your ear, and sometimes you sit beside a prophet who changes your life.

and anyway, anyone in the mainstream media who claims they’ve done a good job in the past 5-10 years is an idiot – especially if they are not interested in exploring how blogging can help them get better (and maybe how mainstream media can help bloggers get better), which is the only conversation that makes any sense, because both are here to stay.

One of the big things blogging does, that mainstream media doesn’t do at all, is involve the reader/consumer. That makes for more honest reporting whether it’s considered “journalism” or not. Yes, some bloggers are jackasses and some aren’t. But the jackasses get pointed out all over the ‘net. You can’t write something on your blog and not have it be flamed, if you’re important enough that people read you. This is why honest bloggers leave comments enabled.

Mr. Skube isn’t used to writing in a medium where any reader can respond with criticism with little difficulty.

but as vonnegut writes, slightly paraphrased, you might as well write an anti-glacier article. (tho that metaphor is melting quickly with global warming).