Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:20:00 -0500, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
The only roadblock we have regarding blogs as sources is that some are more reputable than others, and filtering the wheat from the chaff is important. However, we do that with magazines, books, and journals already, so it can't be *that* difficult.
Um. There are many fewer unreliable magazines, due to the non-zero bar to publication.
That's not entirely true, though. Magazines aren't considered "reliable" due to the said "non-zero bar" factor, but rather because of their history. People are afraid of blogs, even though there are many blogs that are just as reliable - even perhaps more reliable - than many otherwise "trusted" magazines. With very little exception, we'd accept a magazine source, with proper attribution, in a non-controverisial instance, and let the reader make the decision regardless of their knowledge of the source. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't do that with blogs, too.
-Jeff