Wow. I feel like I'm having some kind of personal milestone or something.
See, I've never had either reason or opportunity to butt heads with Dave Winer before. Still, all good things famously come to those who wait, so I suppose something like this was bound to happen eventually.
Because I woke up this morning and found that Dave has decided to define moblogging for us - out of the goodness of his heart, I guess. Or at least because, without he himself having come to some "concrete" understanding of the term and what it implies, it wouldn't be worthy of an hour and a half's airtime at Bloggercon.
(Never mind that we were able to devote a panel at this year's SXSW to discussing the practice, without too much trouble, let alone the, uh, one-day conference we devoted to it in July of last year. I guess Bloggercon's time is more important.)
Winer, for those many of you who will never have heard the name, is both justly acclaimed for his important work in establishing personal Web publishing as a going concern, and notorious in geek circles for fomenting more tea-pot shitstorms than that credential would seem to warrant. I've been able to steer well clear of him in the past because - as is well-known - I am so not a technical guy, I can barely tell a scripting language from a markup language from a programming language, and my concerns have simply historically been elsewhere.
But now he's on my bailiwick. And I must say I'm stunned into near-muteness by the arrogance of someone who would wade into an ongoing, multiyear conversation, among hundreds of intelligent, worldly folks, and deign to drop science on us.
I might not be so exorcised, even, but for the fact that Winer's "definition of Moblogging" (curiously, he capitalizes the word) is stunning in its inanity. Here it is:
Moblogging is any activity that occurs away from your normal blog-writing place whose purpose is to create content for your blog.
Well, no, Dave, it isn't. For one thing, that definition rather presupposes the legacy idea of a "normal blog-writing place," when the interest in even naming and considering a practice of posting content to the Internet from mobile devices lies in the possibility that such notions may be, and probably are, obsolete. Or, at best, only relevant to one class of historical users, who in any event have almost certainly already ceased to represent a numerical majority worldwide.
The reality is that, for most of the people who will publish content to the global Web in the next two years, or ever thereafter, there will be no "normal place" with which they associate the bulk of these operations. Some minority of users - including me, for what it's worth - will probably always hew closely to a literary model when writing: here's my desk, my mug of coffee, my reliable broadband connection and my 5,000 books shelved behind me for reference and reassurance. For everyone else, they'll publish pictures, sounds, comments, and, yes, full and well-developed thoughts from wherever they happen to be at the time, to whatever network exists to catch them. Hence "mob[ile Web] logging."
What Dave does seem to understand is that the definition must be agnostic with regard to the device in question; it matters not one whit if you're using a laptop or a cellphone or a PDA, or something else entirely. But, of course, the original definition already was device-agnostic. It hasn't been improved by subsequent attempts to "refine" it, however well-meaning.
My sincere advice to you, Dave? Leave well enough alone, at least until you've familiarized yourself with the discussion already in progress and are prepared to make some meaningful contribution to it.