So, the results of the inaugural Olympic Blog Bout between Jim Harris, Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen and myself are in. All in all it was very close. I recon you can take one vote away from me because I think my wife voted for me …
You can see the results here
But. it’s not the result that matters
This isn’t me being all PC, it really wasn’t the result that mattered. We entered into the challenge on the back of a number of conversations around different styles of blogging and blog content. With that in mind I think that the exercise was a great success.
Different approaches
The challenge was simple, ‘Go and write a blog about The Single Version of the Truth vs A Shared Version of the Truth’. No further context was set.
What resulted was that three specialists in the field of Data Quality and Governance returned three very different blogs, both in style and content.
The blogs ranged from the ‘far side’ of philosophic with Jim’s post, to Henrik’s very well exampled theoretical entry, with mine somewhere in-between.
The difference in approach by each of us was fascinating. What I find refreshing was that there were a number of common themes that came out. And I think that there is further discussion required on Jim’s definition of “subjective information quality standards” my “contextual single version of the truth” and Henrik’s “making data fit for multiple intended uses of shared data in the enterprise”.
Community 
The clear winner here is the global Data Quality and Governance community. Having additional commentary on their own blogs from Bryan Larkin and Rich Murnane showed how open our community is, and how willing people are to share their ideas and thoughts.
Jim has a fantastic blog on this subject, where he coins the term ‘Collablogaunity’
We need to ensure we keep this community growing and active, having debates like this go a long way in doing that.
C’mon, let’s have a re-match! Anyone else want to enter a team in the Data Quality Blogging Olympics?
Charles, congratulations with the victory.
Having your wife voting for you is not bad. I remember from my childhood in a small town in Jutland (the Western part of Denmark) there was a local election. One candidate only received one vote, and as he was married he filed for divorce. I didn’t tell my wife about this event now we are so close to a silver wedding.
Been fun competing with Jim and you – liked your blogs and sure also the input from Rich, the donkey, Dylan and Dean
All the best
Henrik
Thanks Henrik,
I forgot to add one other result from the competition, it was great fun!
Love the voting story, I’m glad my wife did vote for me
Cheers
Charles
Congratulations Charles,
I echo the sentiment that it really wasn’t the result that mattered (especially since I finished in last place in the voting!).
Our hope was to stimulate discussion and debate and I was very pleased with our collective contributions as well as the great perspectives contributed by the rest of the collablogaunity.
Best Regards,
Jim
Congrats to all 3!! Really great work from all. I have to apologize for not contributing to the discussions.
I would have liked to add an entry with some comments about it, which btw, the Donkey had a great posting!
Apparently I need to find a job at CPP to have more time for social networking
I’m up for a challenge, assuming I get the time. I try to have a life outside of work sometimes.
Great work everyone, and congrats to the winner!
Dalton.
Thanks for you kind words Dalton,
I’m sure we can rope you in to the next challenge
Perhaps you could select the next topic if you wish.
Re: Life after work, this is my life after work, my kids have no idea who I am …
Cheers
Charles