580 Evaluating the blog evaluators

Today I came across “Into the Blogosphere” which calls itself the “first scholarly collection focused on blog as rhetorical artifact,” saying that blogs represent the power of regular people to use the Internet for publishing. It is hosted on the University of Minnesota Libraries website. I haven’t quite figured out how to use the site, but have noted a few inconsistencies in the plan.
Although one of the beauties of blogging (I have five) is there is no peer review, this particular site says that - - -

“The ethos of blogging is collaborative and values the sharing of ideas; bloggers are not dependent on publishers to get their words out.”

And then goes on to use a peer review process to evaluate blogging.

“Yet, as most scholars recognize, the peer-review process is important. Peer review provides a needed check and balance on information; it helps ensure the quality of research and the connection between individual research and the profession as a whole. . .”

Am I correct in thinking their “peer review” process is to provide the authors cache when promotion and tenure review comes up--intended for those write about blogs as a communication form, and not those who actually write blogs. Anyone know?

Here’s a sample sentence or two pulled out:

“In all likelihood, Weblogs will be incorporated into most major media organizations in some capacity if their popularity remains sufficiently high and user figures increase. However, a true blog revolution remains a future phenomenon at best. For the foreseeable future, Weblogs seem well positioned to continue to do what they do best: to allow a forum for open and autonomous debate about media texts in the discursive space that they provide and to function as a real-time virtual feedback loop fostering an interactive debate about the veracity of media texts.” Weblog Journalism: Between Infiltration and Integration, Jason Gallo, Northwestern University .

Notice the references to “future” --we don’t know “future” if we don’t know the "now" for the article, do we? Was this written in 2002 or 2004, January or December? Makes a difference in my interpretation. I can find dates on the comments (I assume these are the peers), but not the articles themselves.

It would be nice to know date of publication for citing purposes, rather than use the date of research (September 2003) buried in the text for this kind of material:

“Color alterations, changing the base color of a common weblog template, are present in 33.8% of the weblogs (Figure 1). Of those that used templates that had been altered for color, 57.7% (n=30) had female webloggers while 40.4% (n= 21) had male webloggers and one of unknown gender (1.9%).” Common Visual Design Elements of Weblogs, Lois Ann Scheidt and Elijah Wright, Indiana University at Bloomington