2004年是博客发展的关键一年，企业思想先驱，如管理大师汤姆•彼得斯（Tom Peters）、创业家盖川崎（Guy Kawaski）等人都开始体验到博客的威力，事实上，如今的经济类读者都必须为作品开设博客才算完整，《财富》、《商业2.0》等全球性商业杂志也纷纷 感受到博客的效用，全世界的企业都开始关注这个领域。
2002 年，博客的概念被引入中国并得到快速发展，2005 年，博客得到规模性增长；2006 年，中国网民注册的博客空间更是超过3300 万个。截止到2007年11月底，中国博客空间已达7282万个，博客作者人数达4700万，平均近每4个网民中就有一个博客作者。
说明：时间晚了，当我梦话吧。
记得刚上网时，还没有听过blog一词诞生，但有bbs可以使用。
于是有一天，申请了一个二级域名，指向了一个我常去论坛的按作者显示的帖子列表（当然指自己），当作个人首页。
当初有报道说，美国中学生课余迷恋于一种叫网络日志的东西，实在不解于其为何有如此魅力。暂时想不起那是哪年的事，自己是在2004年初才申请了自己的第一个博客，可惜自己没有开始写。再说那年blog网站好像国内是一律被封的。
blog现在已被大众接受，我看很多同学都坚持写着blog，妈妈也于一年前开始记录日常的感受。
新事物不断产生又不断发展，是因为需要，而不是好奇。
所以我只能在心里猜测着以后又会如何，遗憾与炫耀有时自己很难分清楚。
虚拟协同的多种方式，以后必然有借鉴与结合后的新产物。发展了若干年无客户端后，会往轻客户端发展，firefox的平台已有这种倾向，而flash目前已经常作为轻客户使用，Google的动向最值得关注。
firefox单独做客户端太大，但他是附加网页浏览的能管理(仍有待发展)附加组件的客户端，只需有一天：网页型的服务都变成附加组件，信息web-page变成rss，离线与在线结合(这个设想每台pc/mobile都有条件连上网，但速度不是本机的级别.包含接收，发布，和其他应用)，提供更加丰富的开发平台，文件管理功能（本地,网络,同步,版本...）。
比如在这种发展之下，web网游与传统网游的界限也会模糊，甚至包括单机游戏（假想xbox3700的“光盘”我买了放在在服务器上，他在第一次运行时安装了一些文件在本地巨型闪存上，有时也可直接读盘）。
自己就要上大学了，写这些不专业的文字会对自己有用吗。自己从小接触电脑，是比同龄人多了幸运，还是多了更多对自己未来的迷惘呢（年长人莫笑 :) ）。
blog的意义在于普通人，除了信息的接收者外，又有了信息发布者的这一身份。
这种认识是从文化的角度观察新事物，那么自己是否也能有文化意味的角度阐述一些看法呢。
博客的历史 wikipedia
【推荐】
转自 方兴东 的blog
推荐参考：blog、wiki、BBS等比较的精彩图表 Dave Pollard的博客名称很牛，叫“如何拯救世界”（How to Save the World），内容也颇有深度和独到之处，一周半月来一次必有收获。这篇关于虚拟协同的文章，对于与博客相关的一些应用，比如wiki、留言板、邮件、即时通信等11种应用进行了比较。主要着眼协同方面的三个应用纬度：包括对话、项目和联盟（Conversations、Projects、alliances）。翻译之后可能理解起来反而更别扭，大家不妨阅读原文吧。为了便于参考，现在附录这张很有价值的比较图表
Virtual Collaboration: If You Can't Work Side-by-Side
The Idea: What do you do if you need or want to collaborate, but you can't do so in person? What purposes are best served by weblogs, wikis, and other types of online collaboration tools, spaces and media?
Collaboration entails finding the right group of people (skills, personalities, knowledge, work-styles, and chemistry), ensuring they share commitment to the collaboration task at hand, and providing them with an environment, tools, knowledge, training, process and facilitation to ensure they work together effectively. This is challenging enough face-to-face in real-time. It's doubly difficult virtually and asynchronously. But there are examples of great music, literature, invention, scientific discovery and problem-solving that have come from such handicapped collaboration. How did they do it, and can you improve the likelihood of brilliant virtual collaboration by using the right tools and media?
Let's take a look at some of the alternatives:
Tool / Medium
Collaborative Advantages
Collaborative Disadvantages
Best Suited to Collaborative:
weblog
easy to post & comment; content is subscribable/ publishable
participation limited to comments
Conversations
wiki
anyone can contribute content
harder to learn; can be easily sabotaged; inelegant appearance
Projects / Alliances
whiteboard
real-time; anyone can contribute content content only persists for duration of call; possible firewall issues
Conversations / Projects
document-sharing can be real time; anyone can contribute content possible firewall issues; attention is focused on a document Conversations / Projects
IM/skype/phone/ e-mail/ videoconferencing real-time conversations; audio/visual context; speed content only persists for duration of call Conversations
mindmaps
shows and documents consensus
can't capture detail
Projects
discussion forums
threading of comments; content is subscribable/ publishable limited contextual knowledge of participants; can attract undisciplined behaviours; threads can be hard to follow
Conversations
community of practice/ interest spaces
organization; defined membership; multiple collaborative tools
harder to learn; formality can reduce intimacy and level of participation
Projects / Alliances
personal e-mail groups
flexible; personal; easy to use
e-mail overload/spam; threads get lost or hard to navigate and follow
Projects / Alliances
social networking tools large number of members; good way to find collaborators most actual collaboration is done using other tools and media Finding collaborators
in-person collaboration
easy; real-time; context-rich; flexible
expensive; time-consuming
All of the above if time & cost permits
There are three levels of collaboration based on duration of contact:
Conversations: Where you're in contact just once, or a few times, discussing a particular subject or group of subjects.Projects: Where you're in contact as often as necessary to complete a project.Alliances: Where you're in contact in multiple conversations and on multiple projects, working together for an indefinite period of time. A collaborative conversation may be provoked by an interesting or important idea or an urgent one-off need for information or assistance. Much of the time spent in business is consumed in consulting with others, in canvassing for ideas or suggestions or comments, and in making decisions on what something means or how to respond to it. These are generally quick, collaborative conversations. In large organizations these conversations are usually peer-to-peer (where trust is stronger than up or down the hierarchy), and as size increases further they tend to be more and more intermediated (one middle-manager recently told me that 70% of his e-mail and 50% of his telephone calls are of the "Who should I talk to about X?" variety). In smaller organizations, these conversations are more likely to draw on external networks, and to involve the use of today's clunky social networking tools like LinkedIn and eCademy. I have argued before that the next generation of social networking tools should include 'people-finders' that streamline and automate the process of finding the right person (inside or outside the organization) to talk to, so that more time can be spent on actual conversations with those people.
Once you've found the right person to converse with, if they're close and inexpensive to talk to in person, that's likely what you'll do. But what if they aren't? How do you quickly provide your Conversation Collaborators with the context they need to converse with you effectively when you can't put a chart or a piece of paper in front of them and brief them? Organizations have found that if the person you want to converse with face-to-face is more than two minutes walk (or elevator ride) away, the probability of you making the effort to converse with them in person drops precipitously.
If you have a blog, an audience, and a little time, your blog can serve this need well. Ask a question on a popular blog and you'll probably get an informed answer quite quickly (thank you readers!) Most businesses, alas, have few established blogs and even less time. Preferred conversation tools in business, when face-to-face is impossible, are now IM and the telephone -- with IM trumping the phone for its self-documentation, its suitability to multi-tasking, and because it's easier to browse than voice-mail, and the phone trumping IM if a lot of iteration is needed to provide context. White-boarding and document-sharing applications, awkward as they are, can be helpful additions to IM and telephone conversations if the participants are savvy enough to use them properly (most aren't) and if documents and graphics are needed to provide more context. E-mail is the increasingly unpopular fall-back.
Discussion forums are the ultimate tool of last resort for conversations, because of the disadvantages listed above. In most of the companies I am familiar with, they are only sporadically used and quickly grow stale.
A variety of tools have been developed for more enduring project collaborations and alliance collaborations. Because they tend to involve more participants than conversations do, the logistics get tougher and the effectiveness of these tools gets more challenging. And the threshold point for giving up on the viability of in-person collaboration rises dramatically. I think this is an absolutely critical point. It is the reason large corporations, with the internal resources (people and money) to sequester, have the capacity to collaborate more effectively than small corporations and loose, unfunded collaborative groups (though whether they use that capacity to advantage is another question entirely). Open Source project teams and alliances have pioneered low-budget, virtual, asynchronous collaboration, and are the role model to follow. But is the reason for this perhaps that Open Source collaborations are generally undertaken by exceptionally tech-savvy groups, very agile at using and even inventing their own collaborative tools to get the job done? They usually have a good GUI for the non-techie, but wade into the material and collaboration technology behind a lot of these groups and your head will start spinning. What about the other 95% of the population? If I want to set up a virtual collaboration team to design a model intentional community (with people I might end up spending the rest of the my life with) or to invent a post-capitalist economy (a large project if there ever was one), what tools and media should I use?
Wikis are one place to start -- a bit nerdy and physically inelegant but functional and not that hard to learn once you take the plunge. They are, however, asynchronous tools, which is a significant barrier to true collaboration.
There are some more robust collaborative 'spaces' for communities of interest and communities of practice to adopt, but some of the best 'groupware' (like Groove and Exchange and eRooms) costs money and requires considerable learning to use its different tools effectively. These tools generally also require a coordinator to invest a lot of time to setting up and managing the 'space'.
There are a variety of document-sharing technologies in the market, which allow several people to see a document at once and to 'take control' each in turn to change that document.
Ideally, using a combination of
Skype (free global VoIP telephony),
White-boarding (everyone online can see what anyone posts to the white-board),
Document-sharing and
Mindmapping or some similar session annotation tool (everyone can see what the group's 'scribe' has documented as the findings, decisions and next actions from the collaboration)
would be a close approximation to an in-person collaborative session. But that's a lot of technology to juggle on your screen, to hog and interfere with your bandwidth, and (if you opt for the more powerful tools in these categories) can also require some outlay of money. My experience has been (thanks in no small part to the valuable insights of online communication wizard Robin Good and Skypemaster Stu Henshall) that video-conferencing (seeing the people you're talking with online) is a "nice to have" not a "need to have", especially when bandwidth limitations force you to choose which applications to have running at any one time.
I am confident that, as bandwidth and processing power continue to expand, we will soon see:
A single, free, reliable, easy-to-use, professional-looking application that will provide what I've called Simple Virtual Presence -- the four applications listed above plus the option of videoconferencing (illustrated above), andA simple, free, easy-to-use collaboration space where the results of the online collaboration sessions, and a library of relevant resources and links, are stored, with wiki-like capability so it can be maintained by any and all in the group. Now that would be a real virtual collaboration environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog
A blog (an abridgment of the term web log) is a website, usually maintained by an individual, with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material such as graphics or video. Entries are commonly displayed in reverse chronological order. "Blog" can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog. Many blogs provide commentary or news on a particular subject; others function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs. Most blogs are primarily textual, although some focus on art (artlog), photographs (photoblog), sketchblog, videos (vlog), music (MP3 blog), audio (podcasting) are part of a wider network of social media. Micro-blogging is another type of blogging which consists of blogs with very short posts. As of December 2007, blog search engine Technorati was tracking more than 112 million blogs.[1] With the advent of video blogging, the word blog has taken on an even looser meaning of any bit of media wherein the subject expresses his opinion or simply talks about something.博客与BBS的区别是什么
1、 从适用的范围来看：BBS是由很多人聚在一起的聊天(很像英语角)，是一个自由交流的公众场所；而群组型Blog则是一批为了共同目标或愿景聚在一起（很 像研讨会）研究和探讨问题的场所，个人Blog则是个人的网络日记本，随着知识与思想的积淀，Blog变成了自己快捷易用的知识管理系统。 2、 从网络文化的角度来看：BBS是一个开放的、自由的空间，面向的是一个较松散的群组，是服务于公众的，它是为了解决人们缺乏自由发表言论的机会而创设的； 而blog则是一个私有性较强的平台，面向的是个人和较小的、具有共同目标的群组，是服务于个人和小团体的。随着网络的普及，人们的言论自由权得到较大的 改善，而此时凸显个人才能、张扬个性、服务于特定对象的需求更日益突出，blog应运而生。正因为bbs与blog的创设理念各不相同，因此拥有各自的生 存空间和服务对象，并不存在谁取代谁的问题。 3、 从文章的组织形式来看：BBS采用帖子固顶和根据发帖的时间顺序来组织帖子(文章)，并采用主题方式对帖子(文章)进行分类,但这种分类用户是不能随意更 改的，只有版主以上级别才具有这个权限，虽然具有主题分类的方式，但实际上这种分类对于用户来说是随意的，用户有时并不按这种分类来发帖。而blog则以 日历、归档、按主题分类的方式来组织文章(帖子)的,并且Blog的使用者可以自行对文章(帖子)分类，或者将属于私人的信息隐藏起来不对外公布。 4、 从交流方式上来看：BBS充许用户回复，但必须注册(通过设置也可以不需要注册)，用户在某个BBS参加讨论后，过一段时间，就很难再找回曾经发过的帖子 (文章)；而blog不用注册就可以回复，同时无论是在自己的Blog写过的东西还是参与其他Blog的讨论，通过一种叫TrackBack的技术 （TrackBack可以让使用者把评论写到自己Blog网站上，然后向刊载原始文章的Blog服务器发送该网页的URL及标题、部分正文、网站名称等信 息，通过这种方式参加其他Blog的讨论）[3]可以把发言保留在自己的Blog中，同时通过原始文章可以找到网络上所有关于该文章的讨论，这些发言用户 可以方便地查找和任意地处置。 5、 从内容显现上来看：BBS的开放性和自由性使用得用户在发表帖子时有时可以不假思索，随意性强，必然会造成无关信息较多。Blog的内容是经过使用者的思 考和精心筛选组织起来的，通过网志的互联，用户是在别人精选的基础对网络资源进行再次筛选，这就保证了资源的有效性与可靠性。 6、 从信息的检索和共享上来看：BBS组织帖子(文章)是杂乱的，因为用户在发帖子时的随意性，造成了在帖子(文章)很多时，检索的结果往往是给用户呈现一大 堆无用的或是重复的信息；此外，在对BBS进行检索时，一般只能对一个BBS的信息进行检索，无法实现跨BBS的检索；而Blog使用RDF(资源描述框 架)标准来组织信息（每个Blog都有'XML'标志，它的链接文档是个Xml文档，也就是说RSS（RDF）[5]是由XML语言进行描述的），可以同 时在多个Blog内检索信息。通过RSS，Blog可以向Newzcrawler这类新闻聚合工具提供'News Feeds'源，实现信息的共享，笔者认为这是BBS与Blog最显著的技术区别。
7、 从形成的过程上来看：BBS的形成是由一大批网友针对不同的主题在不同的时间发表各自的看法，使得知识的形成没有一个连续性，显得杂乱；而Blog就不同 了,通常它是一个人的学习过程和思维经历按时间记录的工具。举个例子，在学习一门计算机技术时（如学习Java或是Asp），如果一个新手跑到论坛里面去 寻求帮助，常常会被论坛杂乱的帖子搞得晕头转向，因此笔者认为论坛更适合有经验的学习者。而Blog把用户（技术的高手）学习或者研究的过程记录下来，当 我们去读这些网志时，技术高手的学习经历可以被我们借鉴和参考，引导我们以最快的速度掌握一门新的技术，因此，Blog对新手的指导作用比论坛大。
BBS-Blog-Wiki的未来－文字解说
一、现状
在 目前主流的互联网应用中，有以下几个应用最值得一提：“BBS”、“Blog”、“Wiki”。为什么不提别的很多很多的应用呢？所有的门户网站、购物网 站、分类广告网站、下载网站，都不外乎内容发布＋其他附加的功能。其他的文章，除了mail之外，都基本上属于P2P软件的范畴，这恰恰是我最终希望将 “BBS”、“Blog”、“Wiki”的特性溶入的归宿。
“BBS”的特长在于用户之间的交流，而不足之处在于个人的发布与知识的整理。
“Blog”的特长在于个人的发布，而不足之处在于知识的整理与用户之间的交流。
“Wiki”的特长在于知识的整理，而不足之处在于个人的发布于用户之间的交流。由此我们可以看出，这三种应用模式，各有所长也各有所短，很有互补的必要。
二、已有的改进和进一步的目标
有一些BBS系统进行了功能扩展，为用户实现了个人的Blog、或者称为个人文集。
有一些Wiki系统进行了功能扩展，为用户实现了User:Talk与Page:Talk的功能。
有不少的Blog现在都开始支持TarckBack功能，以方便用户之间的沟通。
最近我对mediawiki的改进，就是为Wiki用户增加了Blog的功能。而这些改进，其实是远远不够的，如何使得信息能够：从Blog到BBS，从BBSi到Wik，从Blog到BBS，从Blog到Wiki都能够顺理成章的流动起来。将是一个更大的挑战。
三、融为一体
要将这三种信息发布、整理与交流的模式融为一体，需要更加深入的思考。我们必须看透这些不同的应用模式的本质。
所有的Content，都不过是数据库里一条条的记录。区别在于
1、权限
BBS中，Content一般只允许发布人修改。但是允许对Content进行评论与再评论。
Blog中，Content一般只允许发布人修改，但是只运行对Content进行简短的评论。
Wiki中，Content一般允许多人修改，特别具有Hisotry的功能，但是对于评论与再评论的支持很弱。2、聚集
BBS，Content是按照主题聚集的，具体聚集的位置，一般由发帖人决定。
Blog，Content始终是依附于用户的，用户个人可进行简单的分类。特别符合个人发布的需要。
Wiki，Content的聚集非常灵活，而且支持方便的相互引用，特别符合知识的整理需要。3、交流
BBS，支持跟帖评论与站内短信。
Blog，支持跟帖评论与TrackBack，但是相比BBS，Blog对于交流的支持始终不够。
Wiki，支持Page:Talk与User:Talk，但是由于Content的所有者概念不够鲜明，因此Talk的效果有限。因此，我们如果希望将其融合在一起，就需要对Content实现更加灵活的管理功能。
1、权限：用户在发帖、跟帖、改贴的同时都可以选择、设定更为细致的权限。
2、聚集：用户的参与的Content，都同时具有两个聚集路径，一个是由个人定义的，一个是由集体定义的。
3、交流：打通评论、站内短信、TrackBack的界线，既是Content的一种类型，又使用户可以获得提示通知。四、未来
在不远的将来，我们希望能够做到的交流平台，是以P2P客户端软件为基础的，所有的用户，都依靠这个P2P软件与其他用户交流、发布以及共享知识。所有的数据，既是个人的，又是大家的。交流的方式也可以更加灵活，不但支持离线交流，更支持在线交流。
另外对于RSS的改造，也将从单向接收的功能，进化为双向数据同步的功能。
这就是信息技术的未来！
The End
没有评论:
发表评论