For the record: This is a lecture review, not a review of the man who did it.

So, we went to the lecture about blogs. Or as the official title said “Blog – the tool of web-presence of an individual” (next to my “Blogging” title, it sounds omnious)., the author of the lecture, and me clearly does not come from the same academic background. He tends to see things in a more artistic and fashionable way, while my lecture decides to dig deeper and explain things from a more sociology-based point of view. Which is perfectly OK, since the lecture would shed some additional light to this subject and add a more broader comprehension of it.

He did make some interesting points. He spoke about web 2.0, about all those applications that support it (flickr,…) and about the different usages of those application by the population. He talked about fanzines and the way they morphed into blogs (did you know that boing boing! was originally a fanzine? I did not).

And then the lecture got tricky. Personally, I think the lecture concentrated way too much time on flickr-related applications and way too little time on the actual phenomenon, generating web-presence with the tool of a blog. Which is not a mistake, except that in my opinion, it does not really fit the title of the lecture.

Couple of things however really irritated me:

1. “Let`s me check what my next slide is” – annoying, since the lecturer appears ignorant of its own lecture and has to check what his other self wrote a day ago.

2. “Well, you can google that” – erm, it`s related to your lecture. At least think of something.

3. “I think there are no bad sides to blogging” – yeah, tell that to the people who got fired over their blogs. Just an example.

All in all, if the “powers that be” decide to repeat his lecture, he really should

a) Look into the blogosphere from a broader point of view
b) Check out the slovenian blogosphere
c) Goggle more 😉

As for me, the lecture did satisfy some of my curiosity. The origins of blogs and some details about web 2.0. 2/5.