a) improve communication skills by forcing myself to formalize an opinion. Feedback from anonymous readers may either point out an error I made while translating what I think to a written document or a flaw in the argument itself. Of course, I need to be willing to be wrong, and reminding myself that I am excited about learning is an powerful way to cope with finding errors in my work. Writing online is a low-barrier opportunity to become comfortable with this.
b) Document and share a learning process. I benefit from in-depth tutorials, quick write-ups on unfamiliar topics, StackOverflow answers, summaries of lessons learned from experiences I don’t have, etc. Why not contribute back to that community if I am able?
c) Complement traditional forms of outreach. I would not make a decision to join a team on a 30 minute interview. Having more information on how someone approaches a problem, their interests, and a regular commitment to a project is evidence that normally wouldn’t be available about whether we would work well together. This hopefully translates to a better fit for future jobs, and at the very least demonstrates my knowledge and capabilities better than a resume does.
a response to
a) Writing online might be accessible, but it is not low-risk. A double blind article keeps the reviewer and the author anonymous; this blog is not. Others may form a reputation of me that is negative if I am consistently wrong or blind to a recurring category of errors. If this group does not provide explicit feedback, then writing online to improve communication skills may only be a placebo, with possible negative effects on my personal reputation.
b) This is reasonable, but I need to impose reasonable limits on contributions on time spent on topics like these. Seeing how companies profit from the work of unpaid, open-source maintainers, and in recent years the increasing push back against this model (and a more honest acknowledgement of its limitations), shouldn’t the focus of my time be spent on meeting my primary obligations? Can I honestly assess the potential value of online writing here against the known value of producing additional output for nonprofit organizations?
c) A potential employer may be just as likely to use this additional information against me. Even assuming I don’t post or link to objectionable topics, they may disagree with a position I take in opinionated pieces. Mixing professional-facing articles with personal pieces may not be what a company wants, and they may not want to work with individuals who maintain an online presence at all. And while I agree that public-facing work is evidence for what you say you can do, isn’t it almost a given that traditional hiring pipelines will still force their own tests for a applicant’s knowledge?
a follow-up to
a) Does improvement not happen through self-revision as I write? With more writing practice, it seems likely that I will improve regardless of viewership. Additionally, external feedback is a complementary benefit, but it is not essential. Lastly, the act of posting publicly creates pressure for myself to think through ideas more deeply in an attempt to avoid missing obvious errors.
b) Online content is dominated by low-effort material. Continuing a tradition of meaningful contributions that are freely accessible has value in itself. And I don’t feel that I can dedicate all of my time to a single project, even if it may be less valuable. Also, perhaps writing on different topics prevents burnout in the long term. But any technical writing should be aligned with practical problems I deal with, rather than just general, shallow tutorials that can be answered from reading the documentation, I agree. A write-up on a particular issue should serve to reaffirm my understanding of how I solved the problem.
c) Separating professional and personal commentary isn’t a bad idea, and it is fair to clarify that my writing isn’t on behalf of any organization on professional articles. But am guessing that the networking value of maintaining a up-to-date online presence is greater than then potential opportunities lost by it. If an organization is that controlling that I couldn’t express my thoughts online, then I likely wouldn’t want to work for them, unless there are extenuating circumstances, e.g., government roles or something similar. To the last point about still passing specific knowledge checks - that’s true, early on at least, but as a person’s reputation as an expert is demonstrated, these might not be needed.
a response to
a) If improvement through self-revision is possible, why write online at all, rather than publishing to private documents that I consistently review? I am still formalizing an opinion by writing it down. Waiting a few days and then reading back what I’ve written will allow me to detach myself from the argument and evaluate it more objectively. With a small blog like this that is not advertised anywhere, it feels like either there is no difference, or the motivation is that I want people to read it - and to agree with what is said.
b) Settled, then.
c) Tagging content by category, perhaps, or separate pages for work and personal topics. But I should take note to avoid over sharing, or limit personal posts to only those which have value outside of the sharing in itself. For example, a criterion such as: what are personal experiences or lessons that hold instructive value?
a follow-up to
a) For me, at least, I think there is 1) accountability created, and 2) opinions on external topics deserve with public posts. Of course, I privately journal daily, and for this, my motivation is long-term records of my personal development alongside short-term organization of my thoughts and emotions. There is a sort of future self-accountability: over time, I want to become a kinder, more thoughtful person that learns from my mistakes.
On professional development related topics or social issues, however, I feel like these are intrinsically public opinions and are by nature reflected socially. So why does it make sense for me to suppress why I believe in something, even as the actions I take on the basis of these beliefs is public-facing? For example, you might say that political beliefs should be kept to one’s self - but these beliefs will result in a vote for a candidate, which will have an impact on the lives of others. So shouldn’t ideas that may affect others be held accountable by the affected people themselves? By arguing that why I believe something is private to me, it feels like I am only insulating myself from public criticism.
b) And a last note for myself - I do frequently benefit from advice that people write explicitly with the purpose of helping others - but I am not at that point yet, I don’t feel, where I have any meaningful advice of this sort to give.
c) This is reasonable. I should ask myself each time I post: why should a piece of content be shared? What about a piece of writing deserves attention from others? This post even, an argument with myself, perhaps should be meant only for myself. And yet, seeing the state of online discourse, I think more people should consider how what they share affects other people. What motivates other people to post online?
a response to
a) That is a position I am satisfied with. From here, the risk comes less from faithfully describing my reasoning for a decision, and more from claiming that the decision is the right one for others. I could say this more plainly: my arguments should be available, but not imposing. I should try to justify as best I can what I believe and avoid any attempt to influence others to my position.