I had the great pleasure to attend the Josh Wolf party in San Francisco tonight. I am happy to report he was in great spirits -- they may have locked him up but they didn't break his spirit.

Unlike past prison release parties I've attended, nobody was buying shots and instead there was a great group of people out front who were catching him up on what has gone on at the intersection of the internet and journalism since he was locked up.

He had some great thoughts, follow me over the flip...

There's more...

I am coming late to this discussion, and I know I promised to avoid meta last week, but this post at the Republic of T put a bee under my bonnet. Also, I think this post falls into the realm of blog theory anyway--Chris

At the base of much of the discussion about blogrolls and meta these past two months has been an assumption that wanting a well-read political blog is a perfectly normal, harmless and uniform desire. However, is that really true?

Normal? No way. Harmless? It might be, it might not be. Uniform? Certainly not. People start political blogs for all sorts of different reasons. Is it because they want to make a living blogging? Do they just want attention? Do they want to make a difference in the world, in either a specific or general sense? Do they want power? Are they just competitive people? Is it a form of therapy? Is it to make friends and meet new, like-minded people? Is it so others will help them sort out their thoughts? Are they convinced they have answers to problems other people must hear? I'll leave it at that, even though I'm sure there are many more possible reasons that I just can't think of right now.

When people complain about not having enough traffic because they don't have enough links from certain bloggers (even though incoming links are not actually the main source of traffic for any blog, at least in my experience and research), it would help if they explained why they want more traffic and links in the first place. All along, the debate has typically been framed as one of certain bloggers either being obligated to provide links, or not obligated to provide links. However, hyperlink obligation is not the only issue at stake. Another important issue, which is often ignored, is the question of what people are trying to accomplish with their blogs, and why more links and / or more traffic (the two are not necessarily connected) will help them achieve those accomplishments. In turn, this simultaneously raises the issue of what the highly trafficked bloggers are trying to accomplish, and how linking to less prominent blogs will help the highly trafficked bloggers achieve their goals.

The point is, before we enter into the question of hyperlink obligation, we should first address question of motive and goals. What are individual bloggers trying to accomplish? What is the blogosphere in general trying to accomplish? Once we answer those questions, then and only then can we determine whether someone should or should not provide links to specific blogs. I am not saying I know the answer to those questions. I'm just saying that before anyone is accused of anything, people should explain their motives for blogging, ask others to explain their motives, and then see if those motives intersect.

Why do I blog? It may sound corny, but it is because I want the world to change for the better, and right now I think this is the way I can be most useful in making that happen. To be more specific, as an activist blogger, I seek ways to help make progressive political machinery more effective. If, at any given moment, I think linking to you helps to achieve that goal, then I will probably link to you. On the other hand, if I don't think linking to you helps achieve that goal, then I probably won't link to you. It is a little more complicated than that, as there are issues surrounding ways in which links themselves can be effective, but it isn't much more complicated than that.

I freely admit that I am nowhere close to perfect, and that there are ways I can do my job better. However, I am always open to persuasion and suggestions on how I can improve. I try as hard as I can to make whatever difference I can. I see that as my job, and I see my supervisors as the progressive activists who read what I write. If you can explain to me how linking to you will help me do my job better, then I am all ears. If you can't, then don't expect anything in return. Maybe I am simply too naïve or idealistic, but I imagine any blogger, no matter his or her traffic levels, and no matter what his or her goals may be, will tell you pretty much the same thing, if they at least stop and think about it. There is a purpose behind all of our blogs, and whenever we talk about issues surrounding traffic and hyperlinks, it is important for us to keep own purposes in mind.

Last June, I was lucky enough to participate in both the "blog theory" and "metakos" panels at Yearly Kos. At the time, I thought the two were topics were closely related, and even to this day I have often tagged my posts on either of those subjects as both "blogosphere" and "meta." However, in recent weeks, I have come to notice that the two topics have greatly diverged from one another, to the point where I no longer feel comfortable writing about "meta" (at least in the way the term has come to be used and the type of blogging to which it refers). While I am fond of writing about the role of the progressive, political blogosphere within the broader political ecosytem, which used to be incorporated under the "meta" label, I now refer to that as "blog theory." By way of contrast, "meta" in the way it is now most commonly used, has come to refer to something much more specific: discussions centering on the internal dynamics of a small number of prominent personalities within the Dailykos-centric community and blogosphere. While I will probably write about "blog theory" as long as I am writing online, I will not directly participate in the new style of "meta" discussion, despite the new cottage industry which has sprung up around it. "Meta" discussions have become utterly destructive to the broader goal of coalition building, as they increasing become based on cults of personality, divisive factionalization, violations of privacy, accusations of conspiracy, charges of prejudice, and petty name-calling.

There's more...