Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions
Edward H. Carpenter
@ehcarpenter
This was a good read - I've written some other thoughts about it in a reply to @danicaswanson, who put this one on my radar - if you're interested, I'll link to that conversation in the comments. This quote by ithe essay's author ( @vrypan.eth ) stood out to me - “there is no tension between content quality and conversation quality. They are probably complementary.” I would go further and say that I believe a good conversation IS good content – but that raises one of my big and continuing concerns with WC – the obsession attempting to get “good content” without ever explicitly defining what that is. An example of this can be found in my comment on this Cast... What do you think of this essay? And of the proposition that good convo = good content? I look forward to reading your thoughts in the comments.
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Edward H. Carpenter
@ehcarpenter
I shared some other thoughts about the @vrypan.eth 's hypothesis in this conversation - https://warpcast.com/ehcarpenter/0xdecfc6c5 - and here is an example of what I see as the big problem with the "good content" that gets so much press in this ecosystem. To frame this concern differently, imagine if I went into the Democratic Republic of the Congo and put all my energy into telling people that I wanted “good rocks” (when what I really wanted was cobalt ore.) I’m sure I’d be deluged with people bringing me rocks. Some of their offerings would even have cobalt. Many more would have other substances useful to other people – coal, copper, gold, etc. – but useless to me, a cobalt collector. The majority would be, well. Rocks. If I never clearly defined that a “good rock” (for me) was one that contained X% of cobalt, not only would I never get nearly as much cobalt as was available, I’d probably reduce the flow of other useful substances as well. Look forward to hearing what you think.
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
