She blogs me... She blogs me not...

Hmmm... apparently simply using a blog is not in and of itself enough to qualify as blogging, at least according to Will Richardson. Here's his blogging continuum:

# Posting assignments. (Not blogging)
# Journaling, i.e. “This is what I did today.” (Not blogging)
# Posting links (Not blogging)
# Links with descriptive annotation, i.e. “This site is about…” (Not really blogging either, but getting close depending on the depth of the description.)
# Links with analysis that gets into the meaning of the content being linked. (A simple form of blogging.)
# Reflective, meta-cognitive writing on practice without links. (Complex writing, but simple blogging, I think. Commenting would probably fall in here somewhere.)
# Links with analysis and synthesis that articulates a deeper understanding or relationship to the content being linked and written with potential audience response in mind. (Real blogging)
# Extended analysis and synthesis over a longer period of time that builds on previous posts, links and comments. (Complex blogging)

Check his blog for the full post and for lots of other thoughts and information about the ways the Web 2.0 world of interactive meaning-making is changing (or could and should change) the way we think, learn, relate, whatever...

I'm not sure I agree with all of what he says here, especially the "journal writing." I know most of the people who were reading my blog this summer (when I was actually posting on a regular basis) were interested in the journal-like stories I had to tell. I included pictures and links sometimes, but there wasn't much synthesis or analysis going on. But I would still say I was blogging and that I had a specific audience in mind. Sidenote: It's funny that many of you chose to call or email me about those posts rather than submit public comments. There's something very transparent about blogging and Web 2.0 in general...

More Not Blogging on the way...