Believe it or not, I too have been thinking more deeply on the issues AROUND winergate, one of which is who and what defines a "dead" weblog and who has the responsibility for calling the time of death, where should they be buried (archived), or should they be creamated, ashes scattered to the wind.
I began thinking about this because Jenna's blog, which we started when she turned four (she's now almost seven) sat for a year without a post. If that blog had been a weblogs.com blog, Dave would have viewed it as one of the many "dead" blogs he talked about. He said the majority of the 3,000 were dead blogs, and that only maybe only 40 folks (originally) cared enough to plead for their blogs back. His assumption, then, was that the majority of the 3,000 were abandoned or dead.
But that blog isn't dead to me. Even in the year without a post. Soon she'll take over that blog herself, and bring a different voice to an old space. The space doesn't die, really. Or does it?
Some "abandoned" weblogs, where bloggers have gone silent or have mysteriously stopped posting, are more alive for me than the drivel expressed in some currently living, oft-updated weblogs. So whose really "alive" here. And, who says?
I don't have time to post more on this now, but go read Tom Matrullo who, of course because he's Tom Matrullo, is using this latest upheval to explore some deeper issues of this Web we weave.