Let me have some time on this. I’d like to respond thoughtfully. And I will! I hope others will find your comment above and visit your site to see the revised version … (but of course, you’ll one day have a blog and that willl make your stuff even easier to find ;-)

Re; memory
The internet never forgets! People find stuff way, way, way after the expiration date. In my old blog, I used to get comments on items that were really stale (simply because somebody had searched for something and found me randomly).

The first wave of readers are the most web savvy. They’re an important demographic. The next wave of readers are valuable but generally don’t spend as much time online.

This is why a lot of mags will close threads after a certain period (to keep it manageable).

Thanks for your comment and thanks very much for the link to your follow up - that, in and of itself, is totally web2.0 (e.g., that the original author can, with the help of the web, respond and revisit the text - and is encouraged to so do).

And I LOVE your idea of web3.0 - that’s all part of it.

These days, the idea of individual talent and the development of the auteur are getting more and more unpopular in relation to “mash up” culture and the idea of the collaborative read-write web. I honestly think both have equal value. We need strong original voices and distinct perspectives - but we also need participation.

I think your experience with the Salon piece (and all of the attention you received) is really exemplary of an extremely important change that’s occurred in traditional media. In fact, I’ve told your story to most of my students to illustrate just how different this new publishing moment is. And how editors, publishers and writers no longer control the message.

What’s unique about your story is how you responded - with grace and professionalism. That’s another area of skill that emerging journalists will have to work on (how they deal with the immediacy of responses to their work). Had I not read your response - I would have come to your article with a different perspective. And after reading your responses to your piece (at CBC) I was able to grasp some of the nuances of your argument that hadn’t struck me from the first piece. I suspect these nuances have infused your current version.

This is what web2.0 is all about - participation and collaboration. I think it’s going to be good for writers to have all this feedback. And it’s more exciting to have a conversation.

I’m open to being wrong. I’m open to dialogue. That’s the only way to approach this new moment. If we’re really really smart, we’ll embrace the feedback loop and see what we can learn.

I’ve read more than one blogger who changed their view after some dialogue with people who brought another perspective into play. That’s really important to intellectual life, our own integrity as thinkers/communicators/teachers and to the preservation of democracy.