Canadian Weblog Awards
Hmm... I didn't deserve to win (for Best New Blog), but I did anyway. Babbling Brooks, And Gods of the Copybook Headings are both better blogs, and a couple of other blogs were probably better too, but it doesn't really matter about who's better, does it?
I ran a better campaign.
This was supposed to be a victory post, but I think I need to comment on the awards competition itself.
Robert Mcclelland made the mistake of turning the awards competition into a democratic experiment. And as we all know, democracy is pretty overrated (kidding).
My campaign team reverted to tactics which exploited the system, since the majority of my votes came from Sikh Youths who read my blog, while being completely unfamiliar with the rest of my opponents. Sort of like the party nomination contests that people in my community are infamous for taking advantage of -- except it was less corrupt and immoral.
For next year, the Weblog Awards should be turned into a competition that's decided by a group of elites within the blogosphere. That's just my opinion, and I'm saying that as someone who "won". Maybe Robert could bring together a group of 20 bloggers for next year - a mixture of conservatives, liberals and moderates and they could decide the winners. Its definitely less democratic, but I think it'd make the results mean more, since the judges would be far more informed than the average reader.
I know - the thought of curtailing democracy sounds extreme, but its not like we're electing a government or something - its only an awards competition. Very few awards competitions are 'decided by the people'. The people gave Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 a Best Picture award last weekend - would that ever happen with a competition that's operated by an informed group? Probably not (and that's even taking into account the fact that the "Academy" that votes for the Oscars is dominated by extreme liberals). Informed judges should decide awards competitions. This isn't and shouldn't be a popularity contest.
I ran a better campaign.
This was supposed to be a victory post, but I think I need to comment on the awards competition itself.
Robert Mcclelland made the mistake of turning the awards competition into a democratic experiment. And as we all know, democracy is pretty overrated (kidding).
My campaign team reverted to tactics which exploited the system, since the majority of my votes came from Sikh Youths who read my blog, while being completely unfamiliar with the rest of my opponents. Sort of like the party nomination contests that people in my community are infamous for taking advantage of -- except it was less corrupt and immoral.
For next year, the Weblog Awards should be turned into a competition that's decided by a group of elites within the blogosphere. That's just my opinion, and I'm saying that as someone who "won". Maybe Robert could bring together a group of 20 bloggers for next year - a mixture of conservatives, liberals and moderates and they could decide the winners. Its definitely less democratic, but I think it'd make the results mean more, since the judges would be far more informed than the average reader.
I know - the thought of curtailing democracy sounds extreme, but its not like we're electing a government or something - its only an awards competition. Very few awards competitions are 'decided by the people'. The people gave Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 a Best Picture award last weekend - would that ever happen with a competition that's operated by an informed group? Probably not (and that's even taking into account the fact that the "Academy" that votes for the Oscars is dominated by extreme liberals). Informed judges should decide awards competitions. This isn't and shouldn't be a popularity contest.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
8:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home