5. I was at a conference last week at which a frequent blogger was often quoted as the authority, although I think this blogger has had at most one refereed article published. "Have you checked on the validity of [this blogger's] assertions?" I asked. "Well now, we just assumed," was the answer. Is this any way to build a discipline?
Is ignoring someone because they don't adhere to the antiquated rituals any way to build a discipline?
This is not ignoring someone because of antiquated rituals; a person of this stripe will be ignored (or at least have their work *seriously* questioned...) because they haven't done the work (peer review, publishing, external oversight) that is necessary to establish themselves as a trusted member of the scholarly community. Most people want that - to be trusted. Blogging regularly and at length does not establish a person's position on any sane metric of trust... scholarly or otherwise. Sorry, my apologies, et cetera -- it just doesn't. There are people who have managed to become 'authorities' without going through the established mechanisms for doing so, but they are rather few and far between. --elijah