The article makes a few decent points. It also has this little "get over yourself" award entry:
Hey "longtime blogger Rebecca Blood," considering that 95% of bloggers I know consider that stuff common sense and have never heard of you, perhaps there might be another reason you're not terribly link-worthy (i.e. you state the obvious).
Longtime blogger Rebecca Blood circulated guidelines that call for disclosing any conflicts of interest, publicly correcting any misinformation and linking to any source materials referenced in postings.
"It seems pretty clear to me that having some kind of standard contributes to an individual blogger's own credibility," she said.
Yet Blood knows of fewer than 10 bloggers who have adopted her guidelines by linking to the document.
Personally, I think it's a bit amusing watching the legacy media and academic types scramble around for some kind of top-down rules and restrictions to impose on the blogosphere. It's completely backward. The blogosphere is bottom up. A blogger either has your trust, or not. The reader is the check here. And that scares the pants off those who still see information as something controlled by an elite.