Thank you, Darren Rowse, of ProBlogger, who scheduled and organized and found sponsors for a New York City meetup last night. While I have read Darren's work for some time now, this is the first time I met the Technorati Top-100 blogger in person. He was quite personable and attentive during the conversation I had with him. With a blog tag line being "helping bloggers earn money," I would have thought there would have been more of that marketing pushiness I have at times experienced with others; but to the contrary, Darren was pleasant and inviting and in his friendliness and calm, I believe he did more effective self-marketing than if he spoke loudly and gave out promotional materials. Amazing he had such a turn-out without marketing this event beyond his own blog. That is a testament to his writing and the extent that his readers respond to him (especially since this is his first time to the Big Apple).

I am somewhat new to the blogger meetup and more dedicated technology world. While my professional work is more in instructional design, organizational communications, and adult education (isn't all education communication, and isn't all communication education?), I was pleasantly surprised by the variety of people who attended last night. Yes, there were the marketers and blogging SEO devotees (which I have always found interesting since I did that sort of work a number of years ago using WebPosition), those who were more technologically oriented from a programming/software bent, and everybody in-between. While I did not win any of the prizes (too bad!), I am really glad I attended because it helped me put more of a personal position on blogging than just me sitting by myself writing posts or reading those posts of others. Without the F2F aspect from time to time, blogging can be an isolating endeavor. I am glad folks such as Darren work hard to add this human touch to their online world. Darren, until next time!

I wish Tim O'Reilly would have elaborated on the BBC article today about his suggestion for a blogging code of conduct. While I think this warrants thinking about given the Kathy Sierra situation (not to mention her newest note on her blog today), I wonder how a code of conduct will promote free speech (cf. the Bill of Rights) without silencing those who wish to speak their mind (cf. ongoing Chinese Internet control issues). Where to begin?

This blurring of the public and the private, juxtaposed with reality and anonymity, and add in globalization with little start-up cost or technical know-how requirements, makes this a fascinating investigation. We live in interesting times.

I thought today's article on the BBC about Kathy Sierra and her threats that led to her being (for the time being) silenced, was quite good. I am glad the word has gotten around the blogosphere so quickly, especially with so many words of support and encouragement.

In this light, I think Josh Bernoff's post on his Forrester Research blog (shared with Charlene Li), where he is doing an "unscientific sample" to explore the question "how big is this problem?" is a step in the right direction by asking people to share their experiences and answer a few simple questions. I only wish he would have tried to explicitly state what the problem is that he is investigating.

Perhaps the problem itself is the real problem? Is this a free-speech issue? Is it bullying? Slander? Intimidation? Virtual or real violence? Sexism? Theatening? Name-calling? Regardless of how we researchers quantify or qualify data to try to get the pulse of the online community, what happened to Kathy was wrong and horrible.

I hope we can discuss and explore what exactly is the problem, for only then can we consider our options for how to address it. 

I just received a post from Ron E. who created this nifty logo in support of Kathy Sierra who posted about her threats in her blog, Creating Passionate Users. I think this is a good step toward soldarity. If we do not take a stand in the blogosphere, it will become just like our F2F world. 

Kathy Sierra, who I have never met, is among the strongest people I know. Having been threatened physically and sexually and having the strength and fortitude to publicly admit and begin confronting this . . . wow.

She stands for what the United Nations proclaims in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, . . . "

Kathy, follow your beliefs and keep standing tall. Thank you for showing how to best not allow your voice to be silenced. 

PodCamp NYC has changed its venue. It is still scheduled for Saturday, Aoril 6, but it will now be at the New Yorker Hotel, at 34th St. and 8th Ave. I have never been in this hotel (that was recently renovated, I understand), so this will be a great experience. While I did live nearer the New School (the former location and a more interesting area), I am still planning to attend and soak up everything about podcasting. To register for free, follow this link.

I have done a podcast with a colleague of mine at Phronetic International, so I am looking forward to learning more to do an even better job with more of them!

The current Chronicle Review has an interesting article by Cathy Davidson entitled "We Can't Ignore the Influence of Digital Technologies" (that is unfortunately not available, even with a direct permalink, without logging onto their site with an account). While it discusses the Middlebury College History Department banning Wikipedia, her article begins with a very interesting critical analysis of the language used l, so I am quoting the very first paragraph:

When I read the other day that the history department at Middlebury College had "banned Wikipedia," I immediately wrote to the college's president, Ronald D. Kibitz, to express my concern that such a decision would lead to a national trend, one that would not be good for higher education. "Banning" has connotations of evil or heresy. Is Wikipedia really that bad?

I think that is quite interesting — the use of the term "banning" as being equivalent with being "evil." How that sounds like the common approach to anything new, even ironically for an institute of higher education. It is often easier to suppress ideas rather than allow them to challenge us. As I am slowly becoming more liberal in my thinking, I still know that having my ideas challenged tends to make me defensive. What can challenge ideas more than an encyclopedia for and by the masses? I wonder if (when?) Wikipedia itself will eventually become more conservative in protecting its own way of approaching knowledge.

I wonder if what goes around, comes around as liberal and openness lead to power and the desire to conserve it?

I tried to send a direct message to a friend on Twitter, and received the following page error message. I thought it was odd, since I did not know there was some connection between Google and Twitter (not to mention that Google is not my homepage and I do not work for Google). 

Notice the error and url? Any ideas as to why this appeared like this? Click the image to see it full-size.

I have been thinking more about my changing blog focus, and the more I read of some of the ProBloggers out there and the edubloggers, not to mention those who also discuss organizational power and research and reflective practice (and theoretical and philosophical foundations under all of it!), the more I think I may be trying to bring together interests that defy easy classification.

How postmodern. Ahh Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida, where have you all gone?  How else can I make sense of:

I wonder how or if other people sometimes feel their interests and abilities do not fit within the standard groupings that other people expect to see? Strange, how such a richness can at times seem so isolating.