To some blog readers, "blogosphere" and "academic" in the same sentence is a total juxtaposition. But wait! By academic, do I mean "a person who is within academia," or "a creation that has been created under academic standards?" Considering the former, the three blogs of this post's focus will probably fit the bill. David Bordwell's film blog, Bug Girl's bug blog, and Josep P. Colomer's political science blog are all authored by academics--with serious credentials to boot. Bordwell is a professor of film studies at the University of Wisconsin, Bug Girl (wishing to remain somewhat anonymous) has a PhD in Etymology, and Colomer appears on his page with a headshot in a suit and tie (in addition to touting his professorship and other credentials). The initial credibility of the authors and the fact that they author a blog may be where all comparison ends, however. Their content ranges from posts that may be academic journal worthy to those that include pictures on the same level as lolcats.
Beginning with the most academic, there's Colomer's blog. I was originally going to call this blog flat out bland, but that is not necessarily correct on the whole. The author keeps the blog extremely simple. In fact, with the exception of headings and links, the only color on the page is the 58x80 pixel picture of Josep. The content, however, is not bland for anyone seriously interested in political science. Note, politics and political science are not the same subject. You would not come here for breaking news alerts, but for an in-depth consideration of an ongoing conflict. Colomer's articles often link directly to academic texts, and cover specialized topics. If expanded, it wouldn't be surprising to see these articles in a political science journal. Clearly, the credibility factor here is high. The visual (or lack thereof) creates a clear focus on the writing and nothing else. Josep appears at the top of his page in a suit and tie, a picture that would easily fit in on a university's professor biography page. In all, readers are expected to have a lot of background knowledge on the subject, and to be looking for rather sophisticated information as well.
A step down from Colomer's strictly academic prose is David Bordwell's film blog. Here, Bordwell and occasionally his friends write about everything film related. He does not limit his space to film reviews, he also follows films before they are made, like this post on The Hobbit, which may never be made at all. I find many of his topics interesting and accessible despite my elementary film knowledge. Being rather unfamiliar with film blogs I assumed this would mostly be movie reviews, but was quite interested in Bordwell's post on "bugs," the small watermarks in the corner of the screen in TV movies. Although I have little to compare Bordwell's blog to for assessing credibility I do feel a sense of trust with what I read here. This is likely a culmination of Bordwell's credentials, his relating information that I could not otherwise find easily, and knowing that he has been writing since 2006. Two and a half years in the blog world leaves a blog (and its author) with a sense of credibility and understanding of its readership. Is Bordwell academic? Possibly, but in a sense that citing the New York Times is acceptable, or, in this case in using The Internet Movie Database as a citation. I admit again that I've never had to write academically about film. I'm used to stuffy journal articles and dusty books listed in footnotes of an academic paper, so while the blog's credibility remains high, its academicness I still question out of caution.
And then there's Bug Girl. This is where I imagine further headaches for professors in the near future. Think, freshmen writer in an entomology-related class arguing with her professor about the credibility of a Bug Girl citation.
"But she has a PhD...and her post on Cochineal was really informative-"
"Perhaps you also noticed that one of the sub-headings to the article was 'OMGBUGZINMAIFOODZ! YUCK!'?"
"So..?"
On the whole, it is obvious that Bug Girl is posting for fun, to share information, and to make others laugh. Her blog is tone is casual and playful. Some articles are very science-related (on level with a science magazine, perhaps) and others are completely devoted to humor (such as the Monday LOLbeetle). Bug Girl often discusses what's happening in her life as well. The most interesting part of her blog is its evolution. Looking at her oldest posts from 2005, there is much less going on with the blog. Just a short paragraph about bugs in the news, or a grant the author is working on writing. Throughout its existence, the blog is definitely not an academic source, though some readers probably trust its credibility. In the end, Bug Girl says it best on her own in a recent post, "Now, I occasionally screw up here at the Bug Blog–sometimes I don’t fact-check a story thoroughly before I run with it. However, I’m not Scientific American or the New York Times, and I don’t have a professional news staff!"


Of course, this all makes me ponder my place in the blogosphere. Certainly I don't have the credentials of the three authors discussed. But, perhaps I can still strive for credibility and academicness. Or maybe my link to canhascheezeburger.com earlier ruined my chances.