Progressive Blogosphere 2.0: A dialogue?
Here are some further questions, taking off from the quotations that were presented.
1) In Plato's dialogue "Gorgias" Socrates says that he would be happy to be refuted, if that led the discussion towards the truth. Is this a common attitude in the blogosphere? What kind of arrangement of comments and process of deliberation would make it possible to have this attitude be more effective? Or is such an attitude the wrong one for an advocacy blog set?
2) When it is important not just to share your opinion, but to give others a reason to share your opinion, how do you marshall arguments and evidence? Short blog posts do not seem to be the best way. Longer posts slow down dialogue, but this might be a good thing. A net, not a thread, of linked posts, would demand more careful reading, but this might be a good thing too.
3) Does the pattern of comment threads encourage back and forth postings on narrow issues, when what would be more useful would be a net of posts linked in 2 dimensions, across topics, so that one could contextualize another? My own work has involved seeing if complexly linked writing is possible. For an example, see here. But this, and some other pieces, were written by a single author in control of the link patterns. Is there a way for multiple authors to contribute to a discussion that is not regimented by the tree structure of blog post+comment threads? And that produces a result that may take some effort to comprehend, rather than a quick opinion plus vote.
4) Progressive blogging has followed the usual pattern where a few sites with strong voices gather the most traffic and often link to one another. Would other patterns be perhaps better? For example, could there be a central site that was not the possession of a single voice? Or that created complexly linked discussions?