I’m sure that everyone who hasn’t been in an eggnog-induced coma has heard that Time’s person of the year is – You; or those people who control the information revolution:
And we didn’t just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open-source software.
Before we get too complacent with “our” status as person of the year, here’s the view from someone in the education field- infomancy:
When it comes to “me†as a professional, the place where I spend the majority of my waking hours is rather not “we.†Or, perhaps it is a bit too “we†– but the “we†that schools have created to mean “us in the corner twiddling our thumbs and pretending that the Internet doesn’t exist.†See, for me, Facebook is forbidden. Second Life is shut down. Amazon reviews are avoided. Podcasts are against policy. Blogs are…well…banned just might not be strong enough of a word. The word that springs to mind is demonized. So how, then, could Time possibly have meant “me†when they named “you†as the person of the year?
As I look at Time’s description, I notice that I may not qualify as person of the year either:
- Made a Facebook profile? – No
- Made a Second Life Avatar? – No
- Reviewed books at Amazon? – No
- Recorded a podcast? – Does recording a Skypecast count?
- Blogged about my candidate losing? – Nope
- Wrote a song about getting dumped? Never written a song and happily married.
- Camcordered a bombing run? No, I’ve learned to avoid military operations, especially as a civilian
- Built open source software? No, I just try to use the stuff.
Oh well, I guess I’ll have to find my 15 minutes of fame some other way. I assume this means that I can’t put a cool person-of-the-year badge on my site; dang!
Did you create content and establish your identity online? Then you are one of the people who should be credited.
Time’s list has more to do with being brand-aware and being American than it has to do with being on the web.
I mean, for crying out loud, bombing runs? There’s only one nation doing that these days.
Time still doesn’t get it.
Yah, Stephen, I figured it would have been difficult to find a good bombing run to film in New Brunswick ;-)
Once, as part of my UNB military history class, I attended a combined public/military review of training exercises at CFB Gagetown. I watched CF-18s bomb, rocket and strafe both static and moving targets, and also had the pleasure of watching artillery rounds that were fired from several kilometres behind me strike targets only several hundred metres in front of me.
I didn’t film any of it, though…
But when the artillery rounds were screaming in, passing just overhead of the hundred or so of us sitting in the reviewing stands, I had the inexplicable and highly mischievous urge to holler “SHORT-ROUND” at the top of my lungs.
I didn’t do that, either…
Just as I haven’t done any of the other things that Time mentioned. But I do know they were referring to generalities about web use, and not a limited number of specifics.
At least they didn’t make George Bush their Man of the Year.
Like you, Harold, I don’t tick any of the boxes that would seem to make me part of the “you”. Reflecting on the people I know: those I hang out with, those I work with, my relatives – I would say none of them do either. In fact, I suspect most of them are further from ticking those boxes than I am (and that wasn’t meant in arrogant way). I have been part of some interesting things, some good things, some exciting things – nothing that is likely to change the world, though.
I think I understand what Time is trying to say, here, but surely there is someone none of us have ever heard of who has bust a gut for the victims of a tsunami, a drought, a flood? Surely there is some geeky little scientist somewhere that has made a breakthrough in researching cures for some or other ailment? Surely some institution has totally transformed their world? Like you, I find myself concluding that Time must mean someone else – perhaps you.
Like Brikwall, however, I am also relieved beyond measure that they didn’t go for George Bush!
Well, the consensus opinion seems to be – anybody but George ;-)
I don’t know — isn’t Time’s [Whatever] of the Year about on a par with being the subject of an interview in Playboy (or People)?
The snippet you posted, with what I think of as the faux-we (“We did this… we thought that…”), reminds me of Vonnegut’s grandfalloon — his term for an artificial and generally meaningless common denominator.
The mirror of this is the all-but-ubiquitous “my” (MySpace, MyBank, MyGasStation), the professionally friendly website’s 21st-century substitute for sticking “e-” in front of everything.
You’re already in the right place, Harold, and Tom Gilbert would recognize it, because you’re more focused on results than on labels.
Happy new year.