Deb Coates notes that the details about the Harvard blogging initiative are still sketchy. Right she is (though I might use the word fuzzy instead of sketchy, given the now myriad connotations of sketchy; I guess fuzzy, though, also invokes W’s “fuzzy math” comment so that has its own problems). On this sketchiness/fuzziness theme: 1) yes, and somewhat on purpose; 2) not because we don’t want to be held accountable for success/failure but because we want to let a thousand flowers bloom; 3) because we want there to be an experimental, edgy feel to this initiative; 4) because we don’t want to constrain what people might do with the technology here. I think that all we need to be clear on are a few things (Dave Winer, who’s the lead on this initiative, may think otherwise, but here are my thoughts anyway):
a) that we begin with a principle that we seek to advance the use of technology in a teaching and learning environment;
b) that we want to make blogging technology easily accessible to members of the Harvard community to see what they do with it;
c) that we see some benefits out there in this technology for free exchange of ideas, friendship, collaboration, possibly even *democracy* (careful, yup, I know) — could be semiotic democracy;
d) and that we want to stay flexible enough to adapt as the interests of creators and readers and listeners and watchers change.
And maybe even have some fun in the process.