jayjg wrote:
In contrast,
websites in general are often maintained by news organizations, other
publications, corporations, universities, non-profit organizations,
etc. The number of general websites having some sort of editorial
oversight is vastly higher than the number of blogs having some sort
of editorial oversight.
Editorial oversight strikes me as a red herring for 99% of the web. News
organizations may be reliable sources for facts. Ditto for academics
publishing in their spheres of expertise. And I say "may" because there
are plenty of shaky news organizations and academics out there. But
there, editorial oversight does usually improve things from our perspective.
But for everybody else, editorial oversight does not guarantee you
factual accuracy. The purpose of editorial oversight there is more often
to ensure textual quality and conformance with institutional POV. For
many organizations, text isn't so much a means of honest communication
as a means to an end. I'm sure
whitehouse.gov has excellent editorial
oversight, for example.
An expert's blog on the other hand, is unlikely to be greatly improved
by editorial oversight. They already know their own opinions, and
they're already able to say them. That doesn't mean that their opinions
are fact, but that does mean we have no particular reason to doubt that
their opinions are their opinions.
William