I think the dismissive reaction to philosophical blogging is a reflection of the Platonism of the profession. The blog article is often assimilated to the domain of mere opinion, perhaps itself dependent on the currents of fashion. The idea that a blog could be devoted to working out the manifold aspects of a coherent problematic, rather than just publishing superficial reactions to the immediate present, seems not to occur to many professional philosophers. There is also the problem of corporatism: how can we judge the value of something that comes from outside the corporation? Professional philosophy is governed by a competitive habitus, given the relatively small number of jobs available. Philosophical blogging is an “outsider” phenomenon in the current context, and most academics are quite conformist, because of this mixture of Platonism and corporatism.
Paradoxically enough, this Platonism and corporatism underly several attempts to break with the practices and ontologies of traditional philosophy. A typical example is Bruno Latour’s AIME project and its digital platform. The definition of a “contribution” is Platonist to the extent that it must clarify, extend, or modify one or more modes within the system which is held constant as a paradigm. The modes are themselves Kuhnian sub-paradigms. Despite all the talk about “experience” this is not taken in a democratic sense , but only the élitist experience of the experts in each mode counts as valid. When Latour talks about the “protestation” of experience, he is quick to specify that this means the protests of experts (such as scientists, priests, and politicians) against the anthropological description of “their” mode proposed by the inquiry. The protests of the masses against the hegemony of experts’ description of the modes is not even imagined in this system, that is anti-empirical insofar as it appeals to a Platonised and corporatised experience.