The significance of commenting

Louis Gray posed a fairly thought provoking question via FriendFeed today and has since followed up on his blog, saying (“Are Blog Comments Really Conversations, or Are They Just Replies?“):

“I’ve been thinking about the purpose of comments in the first place. When you make a comment on a blog, is it to respond to the blog author and say they did a good job, especially if comments are currency, effectively making a longer version of a “thumbs up or thumbs down,” are you looking to further the conversation with the blogger, or are you instead using it as a reply, without anticipating a response from the author?”

In the context of educational use of blogs, encouraging the use of commenting as vehicles to wider discussion should be integral and fundamental. Blogging is not just about writing; it’s not just about reflection – though certainly both of these are crucial elements. Blogging is also not static because learning is not static.

In fact the term “comment” itself is not nearly as representative of the dynamic and interrelated nature of the overall process as is necessary. It bears connotations of something shallow or somehow less significant than the thought that inspired it (the blog post).

In same educational sense of cognitive development or constructionism, blogging is an organic process that feeds upon itself, and upon the insight and development of those who participate or interact with the information – be they authors or readers. This relies and depends upon a free-flow of information and dialogue between author and reader, in which ultimately all are author and all are reader.

The value of blogs is therefore both reflective and interactive, personal and communal, discursive and monologue – all at the same time. To relegate comments to a purely responsive or reactive role would be to relegate the blog posts themselves to the same fate – and this would sell those involved in the network of learners far short of what is truly possible.

References: