Academic Blog Post - Late

From Andrew Sullivan's article Why I Blog and The Economist article It's the links, stupid, we learned certain characteristics of blogs. Blogs are a spontaneous expression of instant thought and bloggers are highly accountable for what they post. They can contain hyperlinks and the more a blog links and is linked, the more authority it has. While the ideas from Sullivan and the Economist are very general concepts of blogging, I think they they are more intensified with academic blogs, especially in regards to accountability. Because academic bloggers are making claims that their blogs are differentiated from others, the content they post is more open to scrutiny and criticism.

During class on Monday we discussed what type of commentary should be allowed on academic blogs, either scholars only or anyone perusing the particular blog, regardless of their credentials. While more free form and art-related blogs such as Art(h)ist'ry allowed anyone to leave a comment, others had more strict guidelines for commentators. The philosophical blog Public Reason chose to restrict those commenting not just to people with an interest in the topic, but those with a strong academic background in philosophy and current members of the site. 

To register as a member, you must be employed (or at present actively seeking employment) as a bona fide academic political philosopher or theorist actively engaged in research in the field. Members of the site will ordinarily have completed a Ph.D. in a relevant discipline or have a record of peer-reviewed publication in political philosophy.

I felt that this was a bit extreme for a blog but can understand their reasoning for doing so. The founders of the blog are trying to preserve the academic elitism of philosophy and feel that by limiting those who can comment and post on their site, they are able to weed out those on a lesser intellectual level.

In terms of posting comments, I thought  Crooked Timber had the most sensible comment policy. They've reached a happy medium between a free for all that can result in inappropriate or irrelevant comments and completely cutting off those without a PhD.

We welcome comments from readers on posts, but you do so as guests in our private space. Concepts of ‘censorship’ are not applicable. If your comments are blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic we will delete them and ban you from the site. The same goes for comments which are personally defamatory or insulting or which seek to derail a thread through provocation of one kind or another. If your comments strike us as stupid or irrelevant we may also delete them in the interests of keeping the conversation at a reasonable level.

In my opinion, this is the most logical way to censor commentators. They delete comments that are obviously offensive and can restrict you from further commenting for this. But they also don't bar you from initially commenting on posts. In this sense, it gives the reader power as to whether or not they maintain their access as a commentator on Crooked Timber. The reader ultimately controls their fate for commenting. While I don't think that the commenting policy on Public Reason will change, I think other blogs should take note in following the policy Crooked Timber implements. The problem many people have with blogs is that just about anyone can leave a comment and say something plain stupid. But by actively reading, censoring, and deleting comments, many blogs out there can exercise control over their audience so those who leave an irrelevant and unintellectual comment can be barred.