I've been thinking recently about the way that my interest in writing and
publishing blog posts has waned, and while there are a lot of factors that have
contributed to this, I think there's a big part of me that questions what the
purpose of writing is or should be, and because I mostly write about the things
I'm learning or thinking about, my posts end up being off-the-cuff explanations
of things I've learned or musings on a theoretical point which aren't
particularly well referenced, and while they're fun to write and useful for my
own process they're not particularly useful to anyone else. Realizing this puts
me at something of a crossroads with my own writing, and has me thinking a lot
about the practice of citation.
Mechanically, citation anchors text in relationship to other work, but it
also allows discussion to happen in and between texts. Also, the convention for
citation in the context of informal writing is a link or an informal reference,
so it's difficult to track over time, and hard to be systemtic in the way that
one text interacts with its sources.
Blogs bring out confessional writing with ambling structure and the freedom
to say just about anything, which I have found liberating and generally
instructive, but it's also limiting. For writing that comes out of personal
experience, it's difficult to extrapolate and contextualize your argument, or
even to form an argument, particularly in the context of a blog where you're
writing a larger number of shorter pieces. It's also probably true that by
framing discussions in personal experience its hard for people with different
experiences to relate to the content, and more importantly the concepts within.
I'm not arguing against journaling: journals are greatgreat, but sometimes, I
think journals might be best unpublished. I'm also not arguing against the
personal essay as a form: there are many topics that are well served by that
genre of writing. I do want to think about what else is possible and how to
write things that are stronger, more grounded, and easier to relate to and
interact with. I think more citations and references are the key, but I'm left
with two problems:
- Style. There aren't great conventions for referencing things in informal
writing. Throwing a link in the right context works, and is clear, but it
might not be enough as it's hard to know what's a citation-typed-reference
and other kinds of links. Also links don't hold up well over time. The more
formal approaches are rooted in out of date technologies and
tactics. Citations often reference page numbers, footnotes don't often make
sense in informal situations, and bibliography conventions are mostly
non-existant.
- Tooling. I'm pretty sure that well cited texts are well-cited, because their
authors have great memories for things they've read, but because researchers
often have tooling that supports managing a database of references, notes and
bibliographic information. If you have a record of the resources you've read
(or otherwise consumed), it becomes easier to pull out citations as you write
and edit.
Neither of these are insurmountable, but I think would require a good deal of
work both on figuring out better citation formats and patterns, as well as
developing better tooling. I don't have answers yet, but I do want to think more
about it, and probably play with writing some tools.