TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Request to take survey From:<mbaker -at- analecta -dot- com> To:"'Stuart Burnfield'" <slb -at- westnet -dot- com -dot- au>, "'Techwr-l'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Sun, 14 Aug 2016 00:41:09 -0400
True enough. Another case of "collection of letters" but in this case
collected from different people. The letters to the editor section of a
newspaper would be another example, and one that moved a little faster. Mind
you, letters written to publications tended to be more in the nature of mini
essays than conversations, but the point is valid. Few things are ever
completely new. What matters more in when the become a significant shaper of
the communication landscape, as recorded conversations have become in the
present age. (Like, for instance, this conversation which will live on in
the TechWhirl archive until the universe cools.)
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+mbaker=analecta -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+mbaker=analecta -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf
Of Stuart Burnfield
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2016 12:13 AM
To: Techwr-l <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Subject: Re: Request to take survey
Not to disagree with your broader point, Mark, but I can think of a
counterexample: the Letters section in scientific journals has long been a
place for 'the community' to explore, rebut or amplify earlier papers.
These are conversations about technical information, albeit a very
slow-moving, Precambrian version of the conversations we see on sites like
Stack Overflow.
--- Stuart
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 8:20 AM, wrote:
>_ I think there is a broad__ misconception_ about what
> "social media" means. Social media is not defined by its subject
matter.
> It is a description of media, not content. Social media are those
media
> that are conversational in nature. Books and traditional websites
are not
> social. They are one way communications. I publish, you read. But
media
> like Facebook, Google Plus, Stack Overflow, and Twitter are social
because
> I publish and you publish back and we create_ a published
conversation._
>
>_ This is a genuinely new media form of the Internet age. We had_ >_
conversations before, and we had publications, but the nearest we can to_
>_ published conversations was the occasional publication of collections of_
>_ letters. _
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and
content development | http://techwhirl.com
Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online
magazine at http://techwhirl.com
Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public
email archives @ http://techwr-l.com/archives
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Visit TechWhirl for the latest on content technology, content strategy and content development | http://techwhirl.com
