I've given my take on Tribble, Part Deux at Cliopatria--http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/15291.html I won't recap it here. I'll just say that like you, I blog under my own name, and again like you, I blog as an aid to my scholarly productivity. I've published one article drafted entirely from blog posts; a chapter using the same method is in production; and I've lost count of the number of encyclopedia entries I've written using the blog technique. Right now the blog is helping me to complete a book for Oxford University Press. Indeed, much of the blog actually is a book in progress--many of the categories correspond to its projected chapters. I've discussed this kind of blogging at length in a multi-part post, "Custer and the Art of the Blog." http://warhistorian.org/blog/index.php?entry=entry050307-174827

I think Sharon Howard may be right in her characterization of Tribble 2 as face-saving exercise. See http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2005/09/ivan-the-tribbles-back/ That still doesn't explain why the Chronicle of Higher Education would give him a second bite at the apple. His first piece was provocative but otherwise undistinguished. His second piece is, well, kind of pathetic.

I object to Tribble less because of his stance on blogging, which is already quaint and will shortly seem antediluvian, than because of the way in which he represents the worst aspects of academic culture. That's a much more serious matter because Tribble's brand of pettiness is actually pretty widespread. Not all that many acadmics actively practice it but far too many tolerate it and tacitly regard it as the norm. Its effects are very destructive and, I would argue, drain precisely the creative spirit and sense of fun required for sustained scholarly production.

That's a great post, Mark, and great links back to your site. Thanks.

This is deeply flawed:

"Among the more outraged responses to my column, the biggest issue seemed to be freedom of speech. There appears to be some confusion about what the Constitution guarantees. 'Hello officer, the stolen goods are in my trunk,' is one example of free speech that can get you incarcerated. Telling a bank officer you plan to skip town with the cash will certainly cut your chances of getting a loan."

The first example has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. What's against the law is not saying "hello, the stolen goods are in my trunk"; what's against the law is stealing the goods. And in the second case, the Constitution doesn't guarantee free speech without consequences, simply free speech without *legal* consequences.

That said, I don't think this is a free speech issue. I think it's an issue of applying tar with the wrong size brush. Why complain about bloggers rather than people with a general tendency towards personal oversharing in job interviews? Why blogs and not generally bad job seeking skills? Why counsel people to avoid personal blogging rather than counselling them to avoid departments where their personalities will be seen as liabilities? Conversely, why limit any of this to the academic job market? It may be something of a reductio, but it seems to me that at the basic level, what Tribble is saying is this: Think before you job hunt.

Well, thanks, Ivan.

I made an overt choice (which I wrote about) to use my real name because it raises the level of accountability for online writing. My views on anonymous writing may well change, as there is a place and time for it, but if there is any concern about online writing it should be centered on the content rather than the medium. The equation of all blogs with open diaries borders on the willfully ignorant.