Why weblogs are not understood?

There is genuine interest in weblogs, yet it is clear that they are frequently misunderstood. Weblogs exhibit an obstinate resistance to being categorised, and this causes frustration when trying to answer that most basic question: Why have a weblog? People have different understandings of what weblogs are and refer to them either in terms what they evolved from, or by suggesting analogues. The analogues concentrate on what the function of the weblog might conceivably be e.g. online diary, linklog, scrapbook, news filter, punditry page. No doubt these analogues (or sub-categories) arose to help those who are unfamiliar with weblogs make sense of what these sites are for i.e. to answer the Why have a weblog? question.

However the conflation of function and form is not helpful. If you must assign a function to weblogs then why not dismiss the ill-fitting sub-categories, and instead refer to them by their primary function: Personal Publishing? Even simpler would be to unshackle the weblog from an anticipated use, and define it not by its function, but by what it represents. It is worth pausing to remind ourselves that behind the personal publishing is a person, the blogger - hence the weblog is a manifestation of a person, the blogger. In their definitions of weblogs both Weinberger (2004) and Coates (2000) reject analogues of function, or any mention of precursors... and instead refer to weblogs simply as a Representation of a Person. This elegant definition uncouples weblogs from expectations of how they might be used.. and any subsequent corollaries regarding whether they are appropriate for those purposes. Having done this one can begin to search for a suitable metaphor which can help us order weblogs' seemingly disparate elements.

[tag: concept]