Tag: <span>Blawg</span>

Tag: Blawg

专业日志

From Pass By Bar to Dr. Xu

Speaking Chinglish, maybe Yunglish (Yunnan English), I sit in the famous Pass By Bar together with a friend.

"Keep fighting to the notion that no money and no time can be the cause of non-traveling." The owner of the Pass By Bar has been to Tibet twice by bicycle. But in his bar, both the atmosphere and the price are not cheap. 171 RMB for two persons, one is a dieter. Business is always business.

Dr. Xu is a famous People’s Representative in Haidian District. Together with Dr. Teng Biao and other respectable lawyers, Dr. Xu involved in the case of Chen Guangcheng. Dr. Xu’s blog tells us more experiences of lawyers who are fighting for the Rule of Law in China, even it seems an impossible mission. Ideal may always be an ideal.

专业日志

ChinaBlawgReview.org建起来了

张樊对业内问题的把握程度明显比我敏锐，看到我长篇累牍地写了几篇有关中文Blawg Sphere的东西后，很快抓住了实质：现在聚集在FYFZ里的Blawgger们，虽然大多满足于其现有的功能，但也已经出现了SNS的需求。我将其总结为：除了表达，我们还需要交流。

张樊今天还把China Blawg Review（中国法律博客观察）建立起来了，我也是管理员。这里转贴一些有关中国法律博客的讨论和评论，这属于“Blogger人类学”的范畴，呵呵不过应该不仅限于这个范畴。可以做一些范围更广的研讨。

地址：http://www.ChinaBlawgReview.org/     欢迎大家访问，也可先看这篇：推动中国法律博客发展：关于建立China BLawg Review的提议，这是我们一开始的初衷，不过可能这个网站应该不仅仅限于Reviews，边摸索边调整吧。

最近几天疯写Blogs，必须告一个段落了……hoho…

专业日志 itemprop="discussionURL"6

表达本身，不是讨论

姓名：未名斋主   博客网址：dzlai.fyfz.cn   时间：2006-7-9 18:32:00
Donnie学友：以下是我在你博客上的留言，请批评。
     拜读了你的大作，很有意思。我对网络技术不懂。我进入博客世界，是友人的鼓动，是我自己的一个小打算的结果。我的小打算就是：我不认为博客世界是不可以讨论学术的，因为在我看来，任何地方都可以讨论学术，而且有许多人都喜欢学术，喜欢严肃思考。
     你关于博客的讨论，是“关于”博客的讨论，有意义。然而，我觉得更有意义的是，每个人都可以带着自己的一个小打算来建自己的博客世界，即使是象一个小姑娘对某帅哥发生好感那样。我以为，这才是博客得以存在本身的意义。
     正来
==========================================================
姓名：Donnie   博客网址：donnie.fyfz.cn   时间：2006-7-9 20:11:00

邓老师：

在把我那边的回复粘过来以前，我想先问您以及所有其它评论者一句：这样粘来粘去方便吗？再进一步问一句：这难道对“讨论”真的没有影响吗？

本来，真正的Blog，是不必如此的。

专业日志

法豆：中文Blawg批判——别让Blawg变成BBS

　　不是正题，但要说在前面的话（可以略过）： 国人对“blog”一词的翻译，有网志、博客、部落格等多种。在中国大陆，在Blogspot等全球最有影响的blog服务提供者被屏蔽的条件下，众多blog服务提供商利用“博客”一词在中国媒体文化中独特的亲和力和吸引力，使其成为“Blog”在中国最通用的翻译。但是，一些对互联网文化有所认识的人们，早已对这个词汇的模糊性、误导性提出过强烈的批评（点这里看），这种批评绝非仅仅基于技术，而是对中文Blog的体制性忧虑。为了正本清源，我今后将直接用Blog、Blawg（法律“博文”）、Blawgger等词汇——这绝对不是所谓“美国的月亮圆”，而恰恰是为了防止和批判只学形式，而忽略实质的、真正的生搬硬套。

在前两天的Blog中，我对“BLawg是什么？”进行了解释，此前，我还写过“博客这个狗东西”、“法律博客更应重视知识产权”等关于中文Blawg圈的批评文章，因为（1）自己的能力太差，并且思考也有不断深入的过程；（2）Blog、Blawg发音的近似让人容易犯晕，而且在中文法律Blawg圈，对互联网文化有所了解及希望了解的人还不多；（3）人们对互联网特别是Blog的认知限于中文环境（出于某种原因，中文简体网络一直在一定程度上与世界隔绝）；（4）读者习惯性的对电脑屏幕上的文字的囫囵吞枣……等等原因，这些文章没能起到我企图起的作用。不过这没关系，这一现状本身就值得我反思和进一步努力——除了自己的blog文章继续恪守blog的原则外，继续发表对中文Blawg圈的批评。以下是我的最新想法，权且命名为“中文Blawg（法律博客）批判之一：别让Blawg变成LawBBS”。

正题：中文Blawg批判之一：别让Blawg变成LawBBS

专业日志 itemprop="discussionURL"1

从“法律博客是什么”说开来

　　吴丹红的《有感于“法博三剑客”》发表后，引起了一场争论，我在公爵王的相关文章《看法律博客的风向标》中凑热闹留了言，这里把思路再整理下，希望本文不但能澄清和防止一些不必要的争论，并且让争论变为更深入的讨论，从而对所谓中文法律博客圈（Chinese Blawgsphere）的发展有更多的助益。呼…似乎有点托大，不过嘛，请大家先看看再砸好了，呵呵。

　　小弟不是和事佬，不过我还是得先说一句：在大的原则立场上，大家的看法差异不大——丹红也好，公爵也罢，都对“blogger”们自由地发表言论没什么异议（不好意思，不是故意说英文，后面大家就知道我为什么不用“博客”或者别的什么了）。我想，之所以会发生争论，主观上也许是因为不同的人期望阅读到的东西不一样，或者说大家喜欢的文风不同（这其实真的可以理解，每个人都会喜欢或不喜欢某些文风），但客观上还存在一个原因，那就是大家在发言前，似乎还没对争论的基点，也即“法律博客是个什么东西？”有清晰的认识。我跟女朋友（扯远了，汗ing）打电话也常犯这种错，本来好好的，但说着说着就生气了，等回过头来一想，其实是大家没把说话的前提弄清楚，从而产生了误解。

　　一、我们讨论的是什么　　

　　有误解，当然要澄清，否则就没法讨论下去了（这不，丹红兄就关闭了自己那篇文章的评论），可是不讨论更不好——小两口憋不住了还有一句我爱你，Blawgsphere里没了交流，那可就难得弥合了。所以，我们必须先把所谓“法律博客是什么”搞清楚。

专业日志 itemprop="discussionURL"2

Not LOG, But Publication: A Feature of Cn Blawgs

Title: Not BLOGs, But Publications: A Feature of Chinese Blawgsphere
Ver.:  1.1
Date: 20060624
By: Donnie H. DONG (http://blawgdog.com)
Licence: CC: by-nc-sa
For China Blawg Review Vol. 1 (Click here to JOIN US)

The number of Chinese blawgs  (NOT China Blawgs in English, BUT Blawgs in Chinese) is increasing in a geometrical rate. It is an impossible mission to surf all the blogs, so no one dare to say that he/she has grasped all the exactly features of Chinese blawgs, me neither. However, if you are a bilingual reader (Even not so fluent in Chinese or English, like me), and you are interested in the blawgsphere for a certain period (say, two months), I believe you may at least discover SOME characteristics of Chinese Blawgs, me either.

What I find in Chinese blawgs is: A good many of them are actually not "blogs" but  online academic magazines. The following list can be an empirical example, which is a part of the list of today’s "hot posts" in the index page of Law Blog (http://www.fyfz.cn), a well-known site providing blawg service. The topics are oringinally in Chinese, so I translated them roughly.

One Must Regard the People’s Indignation Seriously 
The Translation of Surya Prakash Sinha’s Jurisprudence (Part 83)
Deng Zheng Lai: Preface for Silhouettes of Chinese Lawyers in 100 Years (Author: Chen X. H.)
My Opinion on the Legislation of Lawyer’s Fee
A bit Coolness in this Hot Summer
A Discussion with Prof. Lin: On the Legislation of…
Beijing, What Makes You So Luxurious
Feelings during Supervising the theses
A Facet for Constructing in the Regime of Administrative Aidance
Some Ideas in Reading
The Distance to the Humanism in Our Legal Education
The Ideology of Entertainment
Constitution-Government-Market: A New Analytic Approach of Consti-Economic
Patents Will Never Be Unlawful Registered
The Rule of Law is the Base of the Democracy
A Benificial Attempt in the Study of Civil Law
The Issues on Gender and Minorites among the U.S. Legal Professionals
……

Most of the above topics are as serious as articles in law journals, and after clicking the links, one will find that the contents of the posts are mostly in very formal formats and with very academic tones. In my view, these posts are NOT LOGs, BUT PUBLICATIONs.

One may get further evidences of this feature easily. Academic theses with dozens of footnotes appeared frequently in Chinese blawgs. Some sites have been turned to be a collection of academic works: "blawggers" classified their "logs" with names of famous researchers, then uploaded bunches of those researchers’ academic achievements.

At the same time, some features of classical blogs are missing. While copy other’s articles entirely onto their sites, few Chinese blawggers employ copyright licences like those of Creative Commons (that means these blawgs reserved all their own right). The typical logs that embedded links navigating readers to further related web pages are rare. Chinese blawggers are not used to "log" what happens every day but keep uploading their (or others’) formal publications.

The owners of most popular Chinese blawgs are mainly researchers. Some famous law professors have their own blawgs, such as Deng Zheng-Lai, He Wei-fang, Lin Lai-fan, Xie Hui, etc. Among them, prof. Xie Hui and Prof. Lin Lai-fan’s blawg follow the suit of classical blogs: they post diaries, sentiments, scribbles and even poetries on their blawg site. But their style are not standing on the mainstream.

In another log, I will discuss why many Chinese blawgs represent themselves not logs but publications. Here gose the influences of this characteristic. To readers are looking for research materials, libraries are better than caffs. A researcher may find many useful references from Chinese blawgs and some times he even need not follow the links – blawggers copy the articles entirely! To readers are interested in Chinese lawyer’s life, however, they may feel disapointed. There are not so many practical cases as well as practice experiences be shared in Chinese blawgsphere. Solicitors, barristers and attoneys are still standing in the corners of the blawg club.

专业日志

An Introduction of Chinese Blawgs, Beta

Blawgging For China Blawg Review Vol. 1 Ver Beta 0.1
 
Title: An Introduction of Chinese Blawgs
Ver.: Beta 0.1
Date: 20060330
By: Donnie H. DONG (http://blawgdog.com)
Licence: CC:by-nc-sa
 
Because of the difficulty of reading Chinese characters (even knowing Chinese, one may be crazy when he find that Chinese itself includes three kinds of totally different computer character formats, that’s why Taiwan might split from China in cyber era, I think), a small part of China Blawg map has been unveiled to English surfers. Actually, most of disclosed China blawgs are with some "foreign link", that is, the blawgers may be foreign researchers and/or lawyers interested in China’s law, or its market, and these blawgs are mostly in pure English.
 
However, Chinese lawyers have established a large (not very heavy yet) Chinese blawg atlas in Chinese character, though the first legal Chinese blawg service provider appeared just around Jan 2005. Now there are thousands of blawgs in China, and the blawgers covered nearly all legal professions.
 
Most Chinese blawgs are set on blawg service providers’ servers, and rare ones have their own independent domain name. Now there are 7 blawg service providers. They are FYFZ.cn (more than 8000 registrants), Cnlawblog.com (more than 8000), Lawoy.com (400), Blog.highcourt.org (less than 3000 but only 100 active), Lawblog.cn (700), chinaeclaw.com (less than 400)and Lawspirit.org (more than 1000). The last one declares that it provides a “bilingual” blawg system, but it seems this ad does not allure potential blawgers. Interestingly, the FYFZ.cn, which provides the poorest application, is the most popular one, i.e. there are more than 500 active individual blawgs set on this site and the dozens of new ones are created each day.
 
The most significant characteristic of FYFZ.cn is that it is more "academic" or even "bookishness" than the others. Although the amount of lawyers’ (I mean barristers and solicitors here) blawgs is the highest, scholars dominate the site undoubtedly. A few eminent professors and more legal researchers lawg there activates, ideas, book chapters and even research proposals on there own blawgs. Among them, Dr. XU Xin becomes the top one with his blawg "Poetical Justice", which get more than 347 thousands hits since Jan 2005. Other famous scholars include Prof. XIE Hui, Prof. LIN Lai-Fan, Prof. HE Wei-fang, Prof. WEI Dun-You, Prof. ZHANG Chu, Prof. ZHANG Jian-Sheng, Prof. ZHANG Hai-Bing, Prof. FAN Jin-Xue, Prof. GU Ming-Kang, etc. WANG Yi, whose blog has (at least legendarily) been censored frequently, also registered a blawg in FYFZ.cn.
 
A registrant is not equal to a blawger of cause. Most registrant only post few logs, and a great amount of those logs can not be regarded as "lawgs"—-entertainments and hobbies are always easier than legal analysis. I will introduce some individual blawgs later.