Some non-blogging scholars ... argue that blogging lures people to do damage to themselves and their careers. Quick hits for easy kicks, fun in the short term and personal ruin in the end - blogging is like crack for academics. And there's another argument against academic blogging that's familiar from debates over Wikipedia: how can anything of value emerge from a medium where there's no-one in control, no editorial board, no-one maintaining intellectual standards and norms of civility? Without such oversight, blogging is mere anarchy.So is Bellman against or in favour of blogging? You'll have to read the whole thing.
via David Weinberger