Comments on: Blogging: A Reliable Academic Source?

By: Time will tell « Collection Plate

Time will tell « Collection Plate — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:21:06 +0000

[…] blogging academically including: academic refereeing (peer-review) and reliability/verifiability/legitimacy as a source, issues of plagiarism (particularly because of potential differences in copyright law since there […]

By: 200 Posts » mattwiebe.com

200 Posts » mattwiebe.com — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:09:13 +0000

[…] two most accessed posts are Blogging: A Reliable Academic Source? and A Modern-Day […]

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:42:16 +0000

Peter, thanks for the comment on this old post!

For the time being, I would say that you’re right. What I’m wondering about is moving towards a time where the “rules of the game” change to reflect emerging means of communication in a digital age. I doubt that journals will be the only “respectable” form of academic discourse 10 years from now.

By: Peter Thurley

Peter Thurley — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:59:26 +0000

Blogs are not an academic source - they are, however, a good academic resource. I have been able to develop at least three major papers out of blog posts that I have written. The posts were rudimentary and meant to work things through. The final papers look nothing like the blog posts, but they served as a very helpful jumping point for philosophical writing. Many of the philosophers of religion that have written at The Prosblogion have had papers published in reputable journals that have come about as a result of discussions had on their blog.

By: Dr. Mohamed Taher

Dr. Mohamed Taher — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:48:26 +0000

Also see my other post on Wikipedia and Academia Hit News Headlines Again

By: Dr. Mohamed Taher

Dr. Mohamed Taher — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:45:09 +0000

Thanks for this inquiry, at Faithcommons.org
I delayed posting my response.
Now, check my most recent blog post: Citing a Blog, Wiki - Style for bibliographic notes and references. [http://lisindica.blogspot.com/2007/02/citing-blog-wiki-style-for.html#links]

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 18:04:41 +0000

Hi Donald, congrats on your first blog comment.

And yes, that would be blog, not blogg.

Good to know that there’s hope for all of the spelling-deficient out there!

By: Rev. Dr. Donald P. Richmond

Rev. Dr. Donald P. Richmond — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:48:02 +0000

Thank you, Matt. I think I now know how to blog (blogg?). Unfortunately, like many of the younger people who blog (blogg?), I do not know how to spell — — in this case blog (blogg?).

In caritas Christi Donald+

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:36:21 +0000

I just received an email from the Rev. Dr. Donald P. Richmond of the Anglican Province of America (Western Diocese) on this topic, and with his permission, I’m adding his remarks to the comments here. He said:

I read your question on Scot McKnight’s blog, and decided to respond. (I apologize, but, as I am over 50 years old, I do not know how to “blog.”)

It is academically sound to quote a blog IF the person you are citing is a noted authority. As an example, I would have no problems citing Scot, Rev. Dr. Andrew Greeley, or Brian McLaren because they are known experts in certain fields of study.
It makes no difference whether I quote from a book, a website, or a blog as long as they are “reputable.” However, regardless of how “right” a person may be, and whether we like it or not, we cannot simply quote a person who is not a noted expert and expect it to hold any academic weight. Such is the nature of the academy — - as it currently exists.

These are my thoughts — - and I have taught in colleges and seminaries. I think my wife would agree, and she remains a Professor of English at a small college.

By: Academic Blogging Redux » mattwiebe.com

Academic Blogging Redux » mattwiebe.com — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 01:26:52 +0000

[…] posted on academic blogging recently, and the conversation enlarged at a post on Scot McKnight’s blog. This discussion […]