Weak points of LogiLogi: Yet another blogging-platform
Another point on which LogiLogi might be weak, is that (1) it is very much like a blogging platform, or that (2) blogs are already covering the ground between conversations and journal-papers that LogiLogi aims for. The second issue is (partially) dealth with over here, and we will now go into the first: does LogiLogi differ from blogs, and if so, how?
As you could guess I think that LogiLogi does differ from blogs. Mainly in that:
- Logis are meanth to be shorter and smaller than good blog articles. Most good blog-articles are very similar to a column, or a news-article, but on-line. Logis should be more like fragments in a hypertext.
- Logis offer more interactivity than blog-articles. Blogs usually only allow you to add comments at the bottom, while LogiLogi allows one to annotate texts, and to even insert links into it. In addition, comments are articles in themselves on LogiLogi, and thus on a more equal standing (can be re-used, credited, annotated, linked to, etc).
- Writing a logi should be simpler than starting a blog. Registering an account on LogiLogi is all you need to do to post a Logi. And even anonymous logis can be posted. Also just posting a single logi is fine and can give you a readership. While setting up a blog requires many decisions and continued dedication.
- Logis are not time-stamped in a significant way. While news is timed, philosophy is timeless. A logis significance does not depend on whether it was written today or two years ago. Therefore LogiLogi puts emphasis on tags and links, not on dates of publication.
- Logis are about philosophy, or at least about insightful enquiry. LogiLogi is a platform for specifically for philosophical discussions, and it thus is specialized to serve philosophers and those interested in philosophy.
Would you consider this enough of a difference, and/or did I miss something?