Two recent blog postings discussing blogs and wikis have had me thinking for a while. Eric Schnell's "Scholarly Communication Metrics Must Change," discusses how scholarly communication has changed since the Internet. Prior to the web, scholarly communication was primarily done through publishing. Articles were written edited and published, then readers would write comments, letters to the editor, or another article citing the original. Not only was this the most common way for the dissemination of scholarly research and information but it was also considered in determining tenure.
Melissa DeSantis post "Web 2.0 Technologies and AHIP," discusses how MLA members can receive AHIP points (up to 20/year) for editing a Section, Chapter, Regional or State newsletter. Many of these newsletters are often created and distributed online to members, and the move to put them on blogs or wikis may be a natural progression. However, blog and wiki editors do not receive AHIP points.
The content of the message is often the same but the medium is just different. The technology lets people share information at faster rate. Should all blogs and wikis be considered for tenure or AHIP points. Of course not. But those that meet professional standards or replace a previously accepted method of communication (such as regional newsletter morphing into a blog) should be considered for appropriate recognition whether it is tenure, AHIP points, etc. As our methods of scholarly discussion, communication and research evolve, so should the institutions' and the profession's perceptions.