I give you my quintessence of the last 2 papers of the Weblogs conference –
In a short, but intense paper, Hubertus Kohle presents a series of theses. The first one being that blogging and a peer review is a contradiction in terms. The quality of a blog post, says Kohle, depends on its quick access, on its making a good and clear point, on it being short – all qualities that get lost if you want to fit in the criteria of traditional scholarly peer-reviewing. He also states: the posts that are most commented are the shortest and most personal ones (if I may ask: what is short? what is personal?). He pleads for the definition of criteria for blogs as a singular type of publications, combining quantitative and qualitative aspects.
Peter Haber explores legitimation mechanisms, comparing analog and digital media. Books (monographs especially as the ‘golden’ standard for scholarly publishing) have long established reception mechanisms. Haber then explains how papers have become more and more important and with them peer-reviewing, before he comes to blogs. Blogs tend to contribute more and more to increasing scholarly reputation (especially in the US and in the domain of DH). In his view, blogs should be better embedded in all the other publication mechanisms.
His last point concerns the flood of digital information scholars potentially have to deal with. He presents the portal “Global Perspectives on Digital History” that should soon offer a compendium of rss-feeds. Filtering is the key! – I can only agree after all the tweets I had to deal with today…