Last week I was reading two interesting contributions.
The first was written on . It is about the usage of internet in Asia and is displayed as a summary of part of the LIFT08 conference. According to this review, young people in Asia use internet to be in touch with their peers and to present themselves, their activities, their interests quasi permanently and instantaneously. It is then, it seems, much about self-presentation through a personally created profile, whit its shape left entirely to the authors (with all the risk of excess).
The second is an ongoing discussion on the Ancient World Bloggers Group (i.e. , but there are several other related comments). The points I would like to single out here are the notes on two issues: the question of citations in, and of, a blog and then the issues of how and wherefore differentiate blogs from scholarly writings. Among the interesting points about blogging, as different from scholarly writing, are mentioned, among others, the opportunity of instantaneous conversation and the thematic coherence of some of them.
Both of those issues seem to me to be surprisingly close to what has been described in the first blog. As there seems not yet to be well-established guidelines and rules about blogs (even if it is no longer as naïve as I am simplifying here and there are a great number of ways allowing to guide a reader through the mass of information available, as proves the mentioned discussion) it is still basically an empty space one can shape and use in accordance with one’s thoughts, or habits. It appears therefore again to be a way of self-presentation, of sharing thoughts and news or reading about, or following, a topic of interest in a shape and at a speed oneself chooses. On the other hand, while reading the discussion and writing this comment, I found myself thinking about scholarly writings as a standard in itself one tries to achieve for one’s researches.