Thinking about writing and research

Well my testing of the Twitter thread creation feature in WordPress has gone well enough. I have used it for the last couple of days and the results were successful, but not in any way inspiring. The linking method they use to bring links from the post over to Twitter is wonky. They mechanically extract the link and share it explicitly within parentheses after the original spot where it occurred. So it looks sort of out of place based on the way people share links in a modern embedded way on the internet. It’s an odd style choice, but then again Twitter itself is a forced minimum in a world of excess and overcommunication. Even the new expanded Tweet limit of 280 characters just allows a couple of sentences to be created at a time. You can elect to communicate within that shortened utterance window, but it is not really how I prefer to exchange my thoughts and ideas.

My preference is to engage in a more long form exchange of the written word. That is probably why writing academic articles and weblog posts is where I spend a lot of my time. For the most part either way you are granted the chance to put your thoughts, arguments, opinions, or logic down on the page for better or worse. Sure in the academic writing space you can face delays and rounds of revisions, but that is the nature of things so ingrained in the academy that it took an entirely new method of online pre-print sharing to shatter. That happened due to the fact that people want to openly exchange academic information and learn and develop rapidly in certain segments of the academy. That need to exchange and work toward common frameworks and applications of developing technology required a faster cycle of information exchange. Generally in the machine learning space, artificial intelligence domain, and other sciences it seems that publication in arXiv has been working for people. It is a far less gated way to get your words out into the open vs. waiting for the academic review process of some journals that take an awfully long time to evaluate content. 

A lot of research seems to be starting to form around the way pre-print sharing is changing the very nature of publishing in journals. I’ll provide more coverage of that later when I find an article worth sharing that concisely explains the current situation. That is probably a problem for more than one cup of coffee to solve. I’m only partially into my first cup of coffee and it is only slightly warm at the moment. Microwaving that cup of coffee seems like a lot of work at the moment. I’ll probably muddle on through creating the rest of this page of prose before going to work on the coffee problem. My initial goal for the day was to sit down and write a full page before switching over to editing and finishing the next installment of The Lindahl Letter for Friday, April 30, 2021. During the course of designing the trajectory of that writing effort 37 weeks were mapped out and content was drafted, reworked, and established for the first 14 weeks of publication. As of next Friday we will have traveled to the end of my generally drafted efforts. Starting in week 15 will be entering a new phase of publication on Friday and new content creation for the next week starting on Saturday. It will basically be a weekly content creation and publishing cycle going forward.

It is entirely possible that a flourish of creativity will occur and enough content will be drafted to work ahead again, but that does not appear to be the case the moment. Things seem to be lining up to a weekly content creation cycle. That is not a bad path forward, but it requires a lot more consistency in weekly writing than being weeks ahead of the point of publication. Generally the amount of tinkering and rework is about to decrease.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *