The fuss over our recently obtained SBL affiliate status seems a little bloated to me. I understand the concerns that people have raised, but I don’t understand why anyone would so fervently cry out regarding these concerns . . . at least most of them. From what I have read of the negative reactions thus far, there is really only one truly negative outcome of this affiliate status (see below).
I think it is worth putting this whole thing in perspective.
The main point here, as I understand it, is that bibliobloggers have sanction to set up program units and gatherings at the conference. Like I mentioned elsewhere, if you don’t like the idea of a biblioblogging program unit, then don’t participate. Personally, I would appreciate hearing papers regarding how blogging affected one’s research on a particular topic. It’s a kind of methodological consideration. If you decided to blog portions of an article you later published, were you assisted by any conversation that sparked with other bloggers/commenters? That sort of thing.
It does not seem to me that [as one commenter on Chris Heard's blog put it] Jim is the SBL blog czar. He just got things started. I don’t see how his role with SBL makes any more difference now that the highly qualified steering committee has been established.
Now for the one genuine negative that I see. Bob Cargill said in his post, “affiliation lends legitimacy to the vehicle of blogging.” This can be a problem when it comes to the average student surfing the web looking for legitimate material. Sure, the affiliation and the resulting badge do not mean that the SBL agrees with or officially endorses all content on any blog that is in this affiliation. But say some student is smart enough to use the custom search of biblioblogs to look for material on a given topic. They find some crazy theory by someone way out on the fringes of accepted scholarship (like Brandon, for example 
) and assume that it’s acceptable fact because of this affiliation (good thing Brandon won’t put the badge on his blog!).
Sure, we can warn our students, but that’s not always going to work. And there are plenty of educators out there who wouldn’t have the faintest idea what a “biblioblog” is or why it is affiliated with SBL. The fact is, legitimacy cuts both ways. It’s good for bloggers, but it’s bad in that some blogs just don’t produce reliable information. And it’s difficult to get the nuanced meaning of legitimacy to hit-and-run paper-writers.
I propose that SBL host a page containing not only an announcement of the affiliation, but also some explanation of what that affiliation means. Then require blogs with the badges to link to that explanation. Particularly a disclaimer stating that the views expressed on any given blog are not officially endorsed by the SBL. Read at your own risk!
See what others are saying by checking out Daniel’s link index of the conversation.
