While finalising my Personal Learning Environments paper for the ASLA Online III conference I came across an unfinished document I started this time last year entitled 'Trust and the terrible 2.0s'. It was meant to be an article for Access the ASLA professional association journal, and it touched on similar issues to the one raised in the latest CEGSA journal, RAMpage by Judy Beal about blogging vs writing for a print publication.

This is how it started:
----------------
Web 2.0: What's in it for me?
There is an emerging trend in sessions and discussions I attend and take part in about emerging technologies and Web 2.0 or School Library 2.0 and all the associated so-called ‘terrible 2.0s’. It revolves around trust, identity, quality and community. Web 2.0 is about giving up control in return for trust. If I only listen to, or am exposed only to those I trust, how do I learn other opinions, become exposed to other issues? This is particularly problematic when I am in with the 'wrong crowd'.
------------------

And after a lot of stuff that is slightly cringe-making to read a year later (wow - what a year 2007 has been!) the article ended abruptly with a paragraph that was so inconclusive it is no wonder the article was never finished and submitted to Access.
--------------------
Why am I writing an article for a print journal for a limited number of subscribers to read in 3 months time, when I could be sticking these ideas on my blog and have them splashed all over the web sphere tomorrow? Reasons might include: credibility, considered opinion, association endorsement, and broader audience. It removes the 'personality' element, and because it was requested or commissioned then there is a chance it might actually get written. It may also gain publication points or kudos for my employing institution. On the other hand, perhaps personality is the key and the individual is the new institution?