People writing on the web, by Jeffrey Veen

People writing on the web

There has been a lot made of the value of user generated content (or, as I like to call it, "people writing") lately. The author of this Wall St. Journal article, for example, laments the overshadowing of talented creative people by the YouTube-enabled masses. And only recently, the mob mentality of the blogosphere turned it's wrath on Tim O'Reilly for taking a vacation while an over-protective partner tried to cease-and-desist the good guys. But I've been playing with Vox, and while not perfect, it's given me some optimism that there is room for all of us to contribute.

When I first started this blog a few years ago, it was was a fair amount of trepidation. Before that, everything I'd written for others to read had been professional. I studied journalism in school, paid tuition as a stringer, and moved into editing a weekly newspaper for a few years. Later, at Wired, I took on a column at Webmonkey that - while relatively informal in tone - still went through an editorial process.

So blogging was a departure. It was the first time I published under my own masthead, without an organization supporting me, and without payment (at least directly). I approached it with the same editorial integrity and effort, but relaxed a bit and got into a grove. I even allowed myself to post personal experiences and indulge the occasional obsession. Still, I've always considered blogging an adjunct to my career. Spread your ideas far and wide and they'll pay dividends for a long, long time.

A lot of my recent work has been focused on this democratization of publishing. I've always felt that making powerful tools accessible to anyone is the most effective way to empower any voice - not just those fortunate to own a press or broadcasting tower. Intuitive social media applications running on a universally accessible network really are making a difference.

The irony is that I never really let myself fully exploit those lower barriers to entry. My posting here is considered and deliberate; I really only want to add to a conversation if I have something worthwhile to contribute. So as I started playing around with Vox, I realized the constraint of my "professional" blog may have weighed to heavily in the past.

I described this new tool recently to a friend as "a social networking app without all the poisonous popularity contest stuff." SixApart has done a really good job at keeping the connections meaningful, and I'm finding myself increasingly checking in on what my little network is up to. And I'm writing for them - a little - and kinda liking it.

It took my friend Mike over at Mule Design to point out the obvious: blogging is punk rock. Anyone can do it. And should. Regardless of AdSense clicks, reputation management, or audience size. It's about participation, not scale. If your audience is 20 people, but you connect with 100 percent of them ... well, I'd say that's pretty successful.

I don't know if Vox is the thing that will turn the next 10 million people into bloggers, but I certainly like the direction.

This entry was written by Jeffrey Veen and posted 19 June 2006 at 8:45 AM. It was filed under Personal, Web Design.

Comments

1. On 19 June 2006 at 12:44 PM Jonathan Cohen wrote:

What bothers me about 'user-generated content' is the wording itself. It's incredibly patronizing.

In the old model, people were 'users' or consumers, existing only to passively receive corporate and marketing information. Today we recognize that we are people, and want to make our own media and our own commentary.

'Generated' takes the spark out of what men and women are doing with blogging, mash-ups, and other endeavours - they're *creating*. Not spontaneously generating like an iterative macro. People are scary to old-school corporations because they are unpredictable, they talk back, they disagree with marketing messages. They *create*.

And lastly, 'content.' Content isn't writing, it isn't audio, and it isn't video. In the true cynical corporate world, content is the bread around the sandwich filling of advertising. It's the stuff that they hope will make people watch inserted television ads.

Anyone who makes something new and original - whether assisted by a published platform like YouTube, MySpace, or not - is a creator. A person. And never an aggregate quantity to be marketed to.

I create. Do you?

2. On 19 June 2006 at 1:02 PM Call Cruncher wrote:

Great article! I am new to your blog and so far I like what I see. I can't wait to see your future posts.

3. On 19 June 2006 at 7:41 PM Ian Clifton wrote:

"The author of this Wall St. Journal article, for example, laments the overshadowing of talented creative people by the YouTube-enabled masses."

I don't think that talented/creative people have necessarily been the ones who have (prior to the "blogalization" of the world) been published. It's generally been those who had lucky breaks, had a friend in the editting business, or were simply persistant in their harassment of publishers who got somewhere. Sometimes those people were creative and talented; sometimes they weren't. You can read regularly of all the great authors who tell about rejection letter after rejection letter, making it apparent that talent alone is rarely enough.

In that regard, I'd say giving people voices is a good thing. Sure, there's a lot more noise, but at least we get a choice at what we listen to and what we read. It's no longer picking between the few who "have made it," but picking through the thousands who could.

4. On 25 June 2006 at 12:56 AM steephill wrote:

Most of the video I post falls under the radar of mainstream media. A revelent example is cycling. My amateur coverage of the recent Mt Hamilton Classic Road Race:
http://www.steephill.tv/2006/mt-hamilton-classic/ turned out to be the only coverage people could find anywhere.

"The author of this Wall St. Journal article, for example, laments the overshadowing of talented creative people by the YouTube-enabled masses." is ridiculous. It will allow more people to practice the art of television and light a fire under the producers of the trash on broadcast television.

The modest success of my recent cycling coverage has encouraged me to cover bigger events and with the help of 57 other citizen journalists we caught the attention of the organizers and ESPN2 with our Feburary Tour of California coverage: http://www.steephill.tv/2006/tour-of-california/. So much so that I likely won't get media credentials for the event next year.

By the way, you might be interested in the Tour de France 2006 executive summary page I recently posted which is intended to be a dashboard to television coverage, stage details, team rosters, live internet coverage, final results and photos:

http://www.steephill.tv/2006/tour-de-france/

It will be interesting see how much video of the 2006 TdF gets posted this year. The BitTorrent search link (http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=tour+de+france) you mentioned in your October post currently returns no 2005 stages. I guess they have been removed since October?