Imperfektum.net is the new portal to Norwegian weblogs. As the title suggests, this portal will include blogs that are not perfect renditions of perfect lives, and it isn’t limited to diaries either, as is the previously only such portal, nettdagbok.no.

Imperfektum.net is a direct result of the fuss over the exclusion of Hvis jeg var Beathe from Nettdagbok.no. Torill explains it all – basically, Hvis jeg var Beathe is a blog/diary written by a boy who wants to write as though he’s a girl. The title means “if I were Beathe”, Beathe being a girl’s name. Nettdagbok.no refused to include the blog in their list of recently updated sites because they said it wasn’t true.

It’s great to see diversity in the Norwegian blogosphere. Almost makes me wish I wrote in Norwegian, since I’m assume a more-or-less Norwegian blog written in English won’t work.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “imperfektum.net

  1. Elise

    I joined Imperfektum.net even though I write in English. They haven¥t made any rules concerning language (yet).
    Really enjoy your blog!

  2. chris

    Because it wasn’t “true”? How long is the perception of blogs going to remain
    this unsophisticated? Don’t they know the mere act of writing… etc, etc.

  3. torill

    chris – the people who care whether that’s a sophisticated argument or not are developing imperfektum.net, the people who don’t care as long as they have somewhere to alert their friends that their blogs are updated stay on nettdagbok.no, or perhaps join both for the double exposure, without more thought about it.

  4. jill/txt » norwegian blogosphere

    […] onth’s expulsion of a blogger from nettdagbok.no, and the following establishment of a new portal for bloggers, Imperfektum. At about the same time, a group blog about blogging was started up, Bloggblogg […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.