"One does not only wish to be understood when one writes; one wishes just as much surely not to be understood ... all ... select their audience when they wish to communicate; and choosing that, one at the same time erects barriers against "the others." All the more subtle laws of any style have their origin at this point: they at the same time keep away, create a distance, forbid "entrance," understanding, as said above — while they open the ears of those whose ears are related to ours."

(Nietzsche -- The Joyful Science.)

Last week I noticed that many sites were linking to a particular article. It aroused my innate curiosity; and besides, the comments associated with the links described it as "humorous ... insightful." Well, I might learn something and have a laugh, so I checked it out. I cannot express the disappointment I felt when I finally read the article, for it was neither humorous nor insightful. Another notch down in Mac Web journalism, I thought.

The obvious tip off (to me) that this was not a serious piece was that the author makes an evaluative ranking with no standards for the ranking. I know, I know, it was not his intent, as I will show. It appeared to be satire, yet was not, and I will show why. But as long as it was brought up (by me), I might as well try to answer two questions since no one else is asking them: On what justified standards should a web site be judged and ranked? And, second question: What makes a story linkworthy?

In the course of this article I will lay down challenge to Editors and surfers alike. The answers to these questions are extremely hard to get at. As a philosopher, though, that is just the way I like it! So here are the challenges:

• What makes a good Mac Web site good?

And specifically to Editors I lay down this challenge:

• What standards do you use for determining what to link to? What constitutes a "linkworthy" story?

The challenge is to answer both without begging the question.

Linkworthy?

[Before I say anything please understand this: I know people will say I missed the point of the article in question. One Editor at another site does seem to have gotten the point but missed the point gotten, when he called the article a venting of "frustration" (see comments below). But I think the article raises larger issues — don't confuse the larger issues with my reading of the article. These larger issues need to be addressed even if this article never existed. And, what is of supreme importance is that I am proposing a reading of the SUBTEXT of the article, not the TEXT. It is this subtext (innuendo, if you will) I focus on, which few read. The subtext is not clear though the text may be, and the subtext suggests the real intent.]

The article in question was one done at a site called MyMac.com. The title is "Great Web Sites." It was supposed to be a humorous satire, I think. This is how everyone read it anyway, if people did read it (and think about it) before they linked to it. It wasn't clear at all to me what the point was. For, it crossed lines of artistic satire into personal attack (in fact, the article lacked artistic merit all together). Yet there were clues all over the place if one read closely enough.

The first thing that few noticed, which showed something else was up, is that the writer makes an evaluative judgment of rank for no reason. As I read I was expecting to find some kind of standard upon which the "great web sites" were ranked, even in an ostensibly satirical piece. But there were none, not even assumed ones I could see (I will propose some later — maybe). So what was the point? It seems that the point is many "great" web sites are going away. We all know about MacWeek, after all. But if one reads closely this cannot be the intention. For the author goes into personal attacks and this betrays his real intent — satire might be biting, but it doesn't break the skin when truly artistic. The subtext is anger and bitterness, or as one Editor put it, "frustration," which issued in personal attacks which have no place on the Mac Web.

So let me give an example from the article. But on behalf of journalistic integrity, something few have on the Mac Web, let me set the record straight: I have a personal interest here, an interest to defend a friend, and a promise to keep. I guess I am a loyal sort of guy. It is only right that you know this. With that said ...

Mr. Robertson pokes fun at the deceased MacOS daily site. MacOS daily was a site created by one of the very first Mac webmasters ever to appear on the scene, the one who in fact gave Charles W. Moore his start in writing on the Mac Web. Mr. Robertson makes comments about how this person was out to get rich, and so on. And alas the site is gone and this person has disappeared. Mr. Robertson seems proud of this fact, sadly enough. We are left to believe this person has left the Mac Web to live in Kierkegaardian despair.

To fill in the record (fair and balanced as always). Mr. Robertson has only met this person twice (by his own count), and that was briefly, something like "seeing him" he told me. But I talk with this person, or at least email with him, once a month, when our schedules fit. At present, the one-time CEO of MacOS daily is living a flourishing life (as Aristotle uses the term) as a university student in a beautiful part of the country, enjoying his youth, discovering love, and majoring in Pre-law and philosophy (!!). He is doing very well, and lacks any bitterness. He is not sitting alone at night, bitter because of what might have been, or wishing for what was lost. And neither is he writing attack pieces on others who are not in a position to respond. He is not thinking he is something when he is nothing. He doesn't need the web to believe he is someone important, someone with a future. He'll be fine.

The subtext of the piece was not an idea or some original thought. It was frustration, bitterness, and hate even, issuing in personal attacks. I don't care if it's a Windows site or a Mac site — it doesn't belong on the Mac Web and is thus not linkworthy. Those who promote it are promoting these vices, some intentionally and some unintentionally. Suppose too: Even if it was true (which itis not)? Do we need to write it? Dear readers: There are many stories that could be told about editors on the Mac Web, but some things are still sacrosanct to some. Leave it alone — we don't need to air our dirty laundry in public, for once it starts it will not stop, I assure you of that. It would be a disaster for the mac web to move in the direction of petty fights and mean innuendo. It would kill the Mac Web. THAT is what I am concerned about.

Am I ranting? Yes. Moral indignation it is called. Perfectly acceptable. After all, there are rants, and then there are rants.

Forget about this article for a second. Mr. Robertson is not that important to my argument. Whenever anyone uses the term "great" it is an evaluative term like "good" and "bad." But evaluations are based, I would argue, on standards, or at least paradigms of some kind, by which the members of the set being ranked are ordered. I will assume this is the case though the emotivists (those who believe that an evaluative judgment like "Hitler was evil" expresses only their emotional reaction to Hitler and not a fact about Hitler's character) will want to challenge this. Mr. Robertson proposed none but he does unintentionally raise the issue, which I am going to do here in a fully intentional way.

Now at this point you are supposed to be saying, "You are taking this much too seriously, philosophy boy. The 'Net is a place were any ol' Joe can post a rant, so lighten up dude. It was all in fun." To which I respond: No, the inverse is the case — it seems everyone took this piece as linkworthy (at least according to the numbers of links I saw at various sites) when in my estimation it was not. And besides, it was not in fun — it included personal attacks out of bitterness and frustration for some reason. Need we link to articles that attack others in unfair ways, dear Editors? Do you ask yourselves this before you link? I am worried it was taken seriously rather than perceived as another "ol' Joe posting a rant," for that is all it was, yet the comments about the article suggested otherwise.

Life is short — what are we doing with our lives here people? We're spending two minutes of our precious lives reading these articles? People who just go out and attack out of frustration when the other cannot respond? What a waste. That two minutes is forever gone. Are we better people for it? Nope. I was so disappointed. We can do better than this dear Editors, readers, and writers, if we harness the potential for good the Web presents us with at this point in history.

The Problem of Standards:
The Challenge Stated — What Makes A Good Mac Web Site Good?

I will look at the question of standards for web sites here. I will address it more in a part two of this article. For now I simply raise the problem for your consideration

I am approaching this as a philosopher, mind you, using a Socratic method of sorts trying to figure the answer. So I will propose answers and reject them in hopes of finding one against which no objection can be raised. I don't even know if I will find any standards. In fact, if there are no standards then the Mac Web is nothing more than an assortment of people belching hot electrons for their own entertainment value, and, for a few, to earn a living; it becomes a vehicle for assisting those who do not feel important in our society to feel important in a subculture, and nothing more (as if one's self-worth can be measured by his activity on the web — the best people to be on the web are the one's who don't need it). But it is much more than this, isn't it? Isn't the Mac Web as different as the company that inspires it? Or have we fallen below Apple's own standards?

First, we must get clear on the following question: The standards are standards for what? A Mac Web site obviously. But what about such a site are we ranking? We need some property that a site must possess and then set down conditions for determining if in fact it possesses that property. So what is this property? Quality? Too broad. Content? Nope: That might be a standard in the first place, and so we'd be begging the question to adopt it. Usefulness? Nope — another possible standard. Activity in forums? Again, this might be a standard. It is in fact very hard to say exactly what makes a good Mac Web site good without begging questions when it comes to stating the property being evaluated by the standards in the first place.

Let me illustrate. Joe says, "Site X is a good web site." Ask him, "Why?" He says "Content." Ask him why content makes a good site good. He will say "Content is good." Oops! We've just argued in a circle. Now this applies to usefulness, profitability, forum activity, news accuracy, and all the others.

So I ask again, "What makes a good Mac Web site good?" Obvious answer: Goodness. Yes, but the point is what does "goodness" mean when applied to a web site? I do not necessarily mean moral goodness here, for "goodness" is used in many ways, and things can be called "good" without being morally good, e.g., my Powerbook is good but not morally good. I do think that there is a moral element to much we see on the web, obviously. But let me get back to the point: Can someone answer "What makes a good Mac Web site good?" in a noncircular way? Or let me ask this: Does it even make sense to say a web site has the property of goodness? Isn't that reserved for objects like works of art, moral character, a life, and power tools?

Now we are seeing why the author with whom I started this article didn't propose standards (other than it was an idiosyncratic rant): It's VERY hard to do, and takes a great deal of thought. It is not a simple question of business models and all that either. We are on a level at which I am questioning the very language we use, and so the thoughts we think (since language and thought seem to be the same — perhaps) about the Mac Web. If one does not know what makes a good web site good, he cannot form standards for determining the goodness of a web site, can he? Or must we live with such circularity?

At this point someone might rightly say, "The goodness of a good Mac Web site is just something you see, like you see the truth of '2+2=4'." Maybe. But I have learned that when this language is used it only shows one has not thought hard enough. For it is reasonable to ask, "What is it you see anyway? And how do you know you are seeing it for what it is and not dreaming or hallucinating?" That is what I want to get at. To date, as far as I know, no one has even attempted an answer to this.

So again, I lay down this challenge to Editors and macsurfers alike:

• What makes a good Mac Web site good?

And specifically to Editors I lay down this challenge:

• What standards do you use for determining what to link to? What constitutes a "linkworthy" story?

The challenge is to answer both without begging the question.

Are there standards? Are there objective standards? I will address this in the next article. But at this point my only concern is to get you to think about it ...

... for there is an awful lot of the opposite going on out there.

Email David Schultz

David's "Infinite Loop" page at Applelust.com

More Editorials at Applelust.com