Talk:Blog

Archives:

• Pre-2005 Archive 2

Not an application

Would someone else confirm that Stevie is dead wrong about weblogs being web applications? There are lots of web applications for creating weblogs, but it's like saying a book is a printing press. --robotwisdom 02:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"pitas" redirects to an irrelevant wiki.

No, it's like saying a book is a form of printed document. Show me a weblog that's not produced by a web application. And I'm sorry, just manually throwing up log entries on a web page doesn't count. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:28, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

My blog has never been produced by a web app. But whether it's produced by one or not, no weblog _is_ a web application. An application is a software program, a weblog is a file. --robotwisdom 20:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That is just not the case. Most weblog text data is stored in databases, or pulled from files, but in either case it's a web application that's handling it. A weblog is indeed a piece of software, and more specifically, a web application. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Blogs are not applications. One must use an application of some sort to create a blog, and some blogs, as noted by Stevie do dynamically produce their pages from an application, but this is not the case for most of them. All blogs created by Blogger (including all whatever.blogspot.com blogs) are themselves straight HTML files that have no tie to an application once they have been created. It is incorrect to say that a weblog is an application. --AStanhope 23:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree again, esp. that Blogger files have no tie to an application once they have been created. That just is not true. You use Blogger to modify them, and Blogger continues to collect comments on them and handle the other standard weblog features... which by the way, only an application could handle. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work}

Stevie, here are some questions to try to diagnose your blindspot: 1) Is Microsoft Word an application, in the same sense that web applications are applications? 2) Is a document created by MS Word an application? 3) In a Wikipedia article about 'document' would you say a document is an application because it's created and maintained by an application? If not, why not? --robotwisdom 23:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

You are referring to "weblog entries", not a "weblog." A weblog is a web application that provides for entering and modifying weblog entries, providing other standard features (comments, trackback, etc.). Compare a weblog to a diary... the diary (book) compares to the weblog (application), as diary content compares to weblog content. The diary is the specialized book that provides the format for the diary content, and the weblog is the application that provides for entering/modifying weblog content. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:48, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

To specifically answer your questions, in one full swoop the answer is that weblogs are not documents... because if they were, in your thinking, you could put the weblog entries on a flat web page, then the standard weblog features would magically come into play. Of course, that isn't the case. What you would have instead is a personal web page with weblog-like content. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 23:57, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The first weblog has never had comments or trackbacks, it's just a flat file, maintained by (my) hand. Stevie, when people say "my blog" do you think they're talking about a web application, or the content? Since users don't own the app, why would they say "my"? Why wouldn't I have to say to, eg, Dave Winer, Can I use your blog to post some entries? --robotwisdom 00:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because it started out hand-written, this doesn't describe what they are today. The article already has history info, right? This article must cover what weblogs are now.

Also, let's compare a weblog to a discussion board (since they are very similar)... when I say "my discussion board", I definitely do mean "my discussion board application". And owning a web application has nothing to do with it, as application also means an implementation of same. A weblog is a web application, implemented for the purpose of showing a particular blogger's weblog content. When you invite people to your weblog, you are indeed having them come to use your application implementation for displaying your entries and taking their comments! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

There are many web applications for maintaining weblogs. No one but you confuses these with the weblogs themselves. No one thinks 'Blogger' is a weblog-- it's the app. The current phrasing is just ignorant and misleading, and must be changed. A weblog is not in any sense an application, it's a type of webpage. --robotwisdom 00:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

An application is both the application software and its implementation. This should be quite clear. If you have a weblog in 2005, you have an application, i.e., an implementation of application software. No? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'll be to the point for all coming to this topic: An application is an implementation of application software. A weblog is indeed this, as are discussion boards, wikis, chat rooms, etc. Thank you. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:57, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the general sense that 'webmail' is a web application, 'blogging' might be called another. I have a weblog, but I don't use any web app-- it's just a flat file. I don't think "An application is an implementation of application software" is meaningful or correct. --robotwisdom 01:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that what you're doing is not a weblog, but instead a personal page with weblog-style entries. I know you'll be miffed by this idea, but I think it's accurate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Further, the definition I provide for application certainly isn't the fullest extent of description, but it is succinct and factual. I've been in the computer science field for a couple decades now... methinks I know whereof as I speak. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The expression 'application' originally meant a problem area that computing power could be applied to-- if you said, "We're looking into a new application" people would assume you'd be writing new code. "Application software" was software written for the application-domain, and from this "We're getting a new app" came to mean acquiring application software.

Now, 'blogging' is potentially an application-domain, but it's perfectly possible to blog without using any specialized application software. The way you're using the word 'implementation' is incorrect-- a particular software app may be an implementation of a set of strategies for the application-domain, but a blog is not an implementation of any app. (Can others join in here and straighten Stevie out?) --robotwisdom 01:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• I have a friend who has a Blogger-driven blog that he hosts on his own server under his own domain name... For example, the blog is at http://www.hisdomainname.com as opposed to http://hisdomainname.blogspot.com. Blogger is the application he uses to create his blog. When he creates an entry in Blogger and clicks on POST, Blogger produces the appropriate set of STATIC HTML files and automatically FTPs them to his server. His blog, therefore, consists only of this collection of static HTML files sitting in a nest of directories on his server. His server runs Apache, an application, to serve up the HTML pages, and in order to view his blog one must have a browser - another application. The "blog" itself, however, is application free. Stevie, you pointed to Comments and Trackback as indicators that a blog is an application... Many blogs have neither, and MOST don't have Trackback. My friend's blog has both, but they are driven by a third-party application run by a service bureau elsewhere (Haloscan). Finally, if Blogger and Haloscan suddenly went offline forever, but my friend's server stayed up, his blog would still be there - it still exists - without an application. --AStanhope 03:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To conclude, a weblog can be created and maintained using a web application (if yer smart) or by hand (if yer an idiot). Hence, it's not necessarily driven by a specific application. And also, OH MY GOD! GET A JOB/LIFE you guys! Wouter Lievens 08:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• This, from a 22-yr old who is creating an online version of RISK and has a "WikiStress Meter" on his User page? Yeah, OK... --AStanhope 13:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• Stevie-proclaims-himself-to-be-the-man's definition of "weblog" as an application used for maintaining a weblog is ideosyncratic at best. It is not what most people mean why they say/write "weblog"; they are referring to the content (the material being published) or perhaps the site (the place it is published), not the tool used to publish it. Furthermore, the developers of such apps don't refer to them the way Stevie does. WordPress.org does not refer to WP as "a blog" but as a "personal publishing system". Blogger.com describes a blog as a "web site" (i.e. something produced with their software, not the software itself). Six Apart refer to MT as "a weblog publishing platform" (i.e. a platform for publishing weblogs). B2evolution is a "blog engine". Bloxsom is a "weblog application", a term that would make no sense if a weblog were itself an application. GreyMatter is "weblogging and journal software". TextPattern is a "content management system for... weblogs." LiveJournal is a "personal publishing ('blogging') tool". Go check your fave if I skipped it. None of them say "___ is a blog", and each of these developers goes on to use "weblog" or "blog" in the sense of content or site. Maybe a comment that the word sometimes gets loosely applied to the software would be appropriate, but there's no justification for making that the primary definition. Tverbeek 12:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S. I see little basis for the assertion that the term was abbreviated specifically to avoid confusion with Apache transfer logs; I'd wager that most bloggers aren't even aware of the other sense. "Blog" is a hip-sounding bit of slang, not a disambiguation from "server log". Tverbeek 12:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tverbeek, I agree completely. See my other suggestions in the 'Intro' section above, and the following sections. Let's not let Stevie-and-his-ego trash this article again. --robotwisdom 13:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not about ego, it's about facts. I'll be back in 24 hours to revert again, as I won't violate the 3RR. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Further, it's indeed sad to see contributors reduced to continued personal attacks in making a point that's not factual. Calling a 'weblog' a web application is *not* calling it "software" (and I _never_ made a point like this). This continued misunderstanding indicates an unawareness of what the term 'application' means. A weblog is an application of the web (as wikis and discussion boards are as well), almost always backed up by server-side software. And the content is the weblog as well (See the diary/diary rationale I already discussed). In fact, a weblog is a web application even if it's _not_ backed up by server software. If you create a weblog from scratch, you're still applying the web in a specific manner. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "Jorn Barger" would like to call a 'weblog' an "applied web thingie" so as to give it context amongst other "applied web thingies." Oh wait, a web application is an "applied web thingie." :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Stevie, have you considered that the problem with people misunderstanding what you mean by "web application" might stem from the fact that the term is inherently ambiguous and unclear? In the context of computing "application" is most commonly used to mean "a piece of software", so you really shouldn't be surprised that people interpret "web application" in that way. Saying that it's "an application of the web" (or in more common English, "a use of the web") is a little more clear what you mean, but it's still a rather awkward phrase and a peculiar way of describing something. We don't call a magazine "an application of printing technology"; we call it "a kind of publication". Apparently the problem here isn't (as it appeared to be) a half-baked notion of what a weblog is, but a simple inability to express yourself clearly. Let others help with that. (And as an aside, reverting my edit of the opening paragraph and every other edit between that and an earlier unrelated edit of mine was not a responsible act in good faith. Please conduct yourself more appropriately.) Tverbeek 22:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But a weblog *is* a web application, as a weblog isn't just a form of publication, but a kind of apparatus (i.e., web application) with weblog-specific features for delivering said publication. With respect to the weblog-as-apparatus, this apparatus is a web application, in that it is an implementation of web-based software. A weblog is a web application the same way a wiki or discussion board or web-based photo gallery or web-based location finding is a web application. Discussion boards have "discussion content", and weblogs publish "weblog content", commonly known as the weblog. "Weblog" has a dual meaning here, and we can't ignore this.

Further, reverting is indeed proper and and every contributor's right to do at any time when sound, factual content is being thrown out. My good faith has already been sealed by my long work in the Wikipedia. However, I recognize that I may have made a mistake in my reverting work you did that I might have agreed with. But you have no position to call me on appropriateness, as you knowingly entered into a fray that you should have realized would trigger actions that occurred. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

A simple "I didn't understand what you just wrote" would have been sufficent. And blaming me for your inappropriate actions suggests that we have some kind of "dual meaning" of good faith going here as well. Apparently it also includes blindly reverting based on who the editor was, rather than content. Will you consent to mediation? That would seem a more constructive approach than perpetuating this "fray" of yours. Tverbeek 12:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't begin the fray, as the article was settled for a long time before the so-called inventor of weblogs came in here to stir things up. I'm just seeking to make the article factual. I would also appreciate you stop acting like some sort of authority figure. I've not done anything wrong, as I've followed Wikipedia rules to a tee. My actions have been in 100% good faith. What you call "bad faith" is merely a mild mistake on my part--that's why I blame you--for jumping to conclusions. No mediation is necessary as long as there is an agreement to strive for factuality and not let the so-called inventor of weblogs tell us how to write "his article." — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Arguing about who started it or who's to blame is not going to help. As a newcomer to this dispute, it seems to me that something is needed to resolve it, or else there will be further collateral damage to the article. I have posted a Request for Comment as a first step. If that fails, given the history of the dispute and its degeneration into a pissing contest (or fray, or whatever you want to call it), I would see mediation as quite necessary. Tverbeek 17:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, mediation may help, if only to inform people that they don't "own" concepts or articles. Further, it may be helpful to hold a wiki vote on whether weblogs are web applications or not, and I will gladly accept the consensus. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 17:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted link.

Could someone please explain what is objectionable about this link? It isn't just a search engine, it enables user to look at the relative popularity of a topic of their choice in the blogosphere and is unique in this way. I think it would be interesting for anyone doing research on the content and influence of blogs. Or would it be better to link here, another page from the same site, which is a showcase of selected trends? --newsjunkie 13:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

External links should provide additional useful info that effectively extends the content of the article. If you feel your link does this, restore it.

Also re: the recent devastation to the links, hopefully, the remover will do a line-by-line explanation of why the deleted links don't comply with the rules. Meanwhile, I'll revert any removals (as much as I can do "legally"). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:06, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Self-Congratulatory History?

Am I the only one who reads the History section and wonders whether it was written by bloggers who imagine the blogosphere (and by extension themselves) to be far more important and influential than it really is? I get the impression that if blogs had been around 15 years ago this article would be crediting them with the downfall of Communism, the end of Apartheid, the ouster of Maggie Thatcher, and maybe even putting Hubble into orbit. JAQ 11:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not an application (cont)

Stevie-with-the-egomaniacal-handle-and the-inability-to-read-and-respond writes: "A weblog is an application of the web... If you create a weblog from scratch, you're still applying the web in a specific manner." Stevie's rationalisations are increasingly adhoc and insupportable. This is not what 'application' means, as I tried to explain above, at some length. Stevie's use of 'implementation' is similarly bizarre. The Web is not something that can be applied, but rather the expression 'web application' refers to software applications that reside on the Web. I'm coming to the conclusion that Stevie's attitude needs to be addressed as recurrent vandalism. --robotwisdom 19:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Argument via personal attack" will not work here. I have already answered all the points raised here adequately. I will defend the content again tomorrow; however I will attempt to merge what is currently here with what was here before. That is the fair approach, as there are kernels of truth in both versions. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 19:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

No, Stevie, there's no kernel of truth in your confabulated definitions, and I resent that your giant ego has led you to impose your errors on the world for months in the face of my feedback. --robotwisdom 20:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's apparent you're on some kind of crusade here. I'm merely trying to ensure that the Wikipedia reports facts about various concepts. At any rate, I'm going to merge my material back in tomorrow without doing a full revert. You seem to want to ascribe evil behavior on my part, but that's just plain silly. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

There's been questions raised as to whether I'm really Jorn-- I don't know how to prove it but here's proof I have access to his website. --robotwisdom 19:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tverbeek, you interpret Stevie's phrase "web application" as synonymous (in his mind) with "use of the web". Perhaps this correctly explains how he sees things, but if you read the article for web application it's obviously not what the expression properly means. --robotwisdom 23:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That just means the web application article might need some work. You may want to defer to those who have worked as software developers on applications to know what the term 'application' means. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stevie, I bought my first computer in 1964. If I'm on any crusade, it's to wake you up to the immaturity of your offensively egomaniacal handle. If you want to try re-writing web application so it means what you think it means, I welcome this as a quick way to discover your error. But you clearly aren't a responsible contributor, so I think we need to pursue this in other ways as well (eg classing you as a vandal). --robotwisdom 01:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Offensively egomaniacal handle", which is what? My goodness. Please do report me as a vandal. I actually encourage you. It will "get laughed out of court."

Further, it would seem to me that using the overwhelmingly emotional language you are using against someone you simply disagree with is what most people would term "immature." You may want to reexamine the kind of language you're using here and see if it's not actually hurting your cause (even if you're right). — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously your offensive handle is "Stevie is the man!" which you flaunt after every post. I've never seen any sign that you tried to understand anything I've written-- you exist in a bubble of ego where no one else's opinion matters. You don't notice that everyone else who's entered this debate agrees with me, not with you. You've obviously never bothered to read the article web application. You make absurd egomaniacal judgments about my background without bothering to research them or to acknowledge your errors when I point them out. You reflexively revert to your version without paying any attention to others' views. So what good are you? --robotwisdom 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not everyone has agreed with you, and you know that. Further, it's not "egomaniacal" to point out that you haven't supported who you say you are. That's just an objective observation.

Re: my handle, that's just my signature. If you want to deny me my individuality and creativity, and accordingly the same of all contributors who have the same ability to produce unusual signatures, then again, you may want to reexamine your stance.

What good am I? What good is anybody? I've made honest attempts to make this article into a better article, and I've been working at it for a long while. So, in Wikipedia terms, that makes me pretty good.

You just seem to want to convert honest disagreements into some pissing match, and that is quite a shame. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Everyone but you agrees that calling a weblog a web app is a mistake. I've tried and tried to explain why, but you don't bother to read and respond. A bragging handle is immature and in bad taste, especially when you don't have anywhere near the insight to match it. If you want to demonstrate your sincerity about improving the article, try addressing the points I've made instead of just reasserting your original pov. Start with the web application article, which is the root of your problem (you never read/understood it.) --robotwisdom 03:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're plainly wrong that everyone agrees that calling a weblog a web app is a mistake. The disagreement is over saying it's just a web application. And I've already compromised on that. It's all in the record.

I am under no obligation to respond to you at any time. You don't deserve any special repsonses from me just because you say something, which is usually taking an argument in yet another circle. Nor have I ever "bragged". I will follow the facts as I know them. Period. And will gladly discuss this topic with those who aren't so prone to dig in with personal attacks as you have done.

I have already gone to great ends to find compromise language, and that's clear in the record. And later today, I will do the same again. And I'll keep doing it until the content is accurate and covers the topic entirely, not ignoring the fact that weblogs are web applications.

I responded to you as much as I'm going to respond to you. But given that you are indeed a very uncivil person, you not get any further response from me on anything, from now until the end of time. I hope this is clear.

And I will do my honest best to make sure this article is factual, as I've done everywhere else in the Wikipedia. And this much is true, most long-time contributors like me work pretty much the same way! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

The statement "a weblog is a web application" is clearly not a "fact", because it is rather obviously disputed. It is at most an opinion or a (seemingly minority) perspective. Tverbeek 12:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a fact, but I'm not going to revert the article back. I only did mild edits that should be agreeable to all. It's amazing to me that there continues to be a disagreement over what really is a simple idea. So I guess wikis and discussion boards are also not web applications? Sheesh. I suppose that whenever I look at this article from now on, I'll have to consider myself entering Bizarro World, where black is white and white is black. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this would be a case of the pot calling the kettle white, then. Tverbeek 17:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikis may be web applications, but the wiki entry is not, and separating the wiki from the wiki content is only a matter of convention, since English hasn't caught up yet. The cgi or php required to make a discussion board may be considered an application, but the actual discussion board is not an application. HTML is certainly not an application, but I can create a web page with HTML and CSS and Javascript to create a blog that reasonably matches what Blogger or Movable Type applications create, with the ability to add comments and (possibly) trackbacks. At no time, using HTML, CSS, and Javascript, did I create a web application. I created a document that a web browser (a real application) parses. A blog is not an application. Neither is a PDF, which can contain links and allow users to embed comments. A Flash file is totally and completely interactive, but is not an application. One can wrap it in an application, to allow it to play independently on a desktop, but without the application wrapper, it's just a file, just like a blog. A good rule of thumb, if you can embed something in it, it's a file, not an application. --MacPhoenix 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question

In the "Creating and publishing weblogs" section, there is a sentence:

Blogs with features such as TrackBack are credited with complicating search engine page ranking techniques

How can a "web-based publication" have a programmatic feature? Interesting. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your face has features: eyes, nose, mouth; they grew there while there were programmatic genetic algorithms modifying your appearance but will remain after you are dead. A weblog has features: ads, comments, trackback, post timestamps, post attributions, &c. If the weblog were archived as static text, it would still have those features, so they are not inherently "programmatic" even though the HTML that expresses them was generated by a program or "application".

We also use the word "features" to refer to the affordances of application software. And if the software that publishes a given weblog affords modification of its content with Web tools, then that weblog can reasonably be called a "Web application". But that doesn't mean that the category "weblog" is a subcategory of "Web application", just that a Web site can be both at once. Jorn's site is certainly a weblog, and certainly not a Web application, and there are plenty of others in that region of the Venn diagram.

Your proposition that "Web application" means "application of the Web" means "use of the Web" - which just means "Web site" - is silly.

Nic Wolff

RfC

Are people still looking for input, or can I remove the listing? Dan100 (Talk) 20:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• In light of the fact that the sole advocate of the "weblog = a web application" position has ended his crusade [1], I think we can remove the RfC listing. Tverbeek 17:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)