On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:48:14 -0600 (CST), "Jeff
Raymond"
<jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
> 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.
There are two bars to magazine publication: cost (for the magazine
itself) and editorial review (for the content).
*cough*
By definition, trash magazines do *not* have decent editorial review.
--
Alphax -
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: