> Guiding people away from the writings of random nobodies in favor of mainstream authorities doesn't feel entirely proper.
Why not? I think the issue is the word "mainstream". If by mainstream, we mean pre-Internet authorities, such as leading newspapers, then I think that's inappropriate and an odd prejudice.
But we could use 'authorities' to improve the quality of social media - that is, create a category of social media that follows high standards. There's nothing about the medium that prevents it.
There's not much difference between a blog entry and scientific journal publication: The founders of the scientific method wrote letters and reports about what they found; they could just as well have posted it on their blogs, if they could.
At some point, a few decided they would follow certain standards --- You have to see it yourself. You need publicly verifiable evidence. You need a falsifiable claim. You need to prove that the observed phenomena can be generalized. You should start with a review of prior research following this standard. Etc. --- Journalists follow similar standards, as do courts.
There's no reason bloggers can't do the same, or some bloggers and social media posters, and then they could join the group of 'authorities'. Why not? For the ones who are serious and want to be taken seriously, why not? How could they settle for less for their own work product?
Why not? I think the issue is the word "mainstream". If by mainstream, we mean pre-Internet authorities, such as leading newspapers, then I think that's inappropriate and an odd prejudice.
But we could use 'authorities' to improve the quality of social media - that is, create a category of social media that follows high standards. There's nothing about the medium that prevents it.
There's not much difference between a blog entry and scientific journal publication: The founders of the scientific method wrote letters and reports about what they found; they could just as well have posted it on their blogs, if they could.
At some point, a few decided they would follow certain standards --- You have to see it yourself. You need publicly verifiable evidence. You need a falsifiable claim. You need to prove that the observed phenomena can be generalized. You should start with a review of prior research following this standard. Etc. --- Journalists follow similar standards, as do courts.
There's no reason bloggers can't do the same, or some bloggers and social media posters, and then they could join the group of 'authorities'. Why not? For the ones who are serious and want to be taken seriously, why not? How could they settle for less for their own work product?