Some kinds of writing are stamped with a badge of authority--the king wrote it, say, or the head of the research lab confirmed it, or the writer's last book won the Pulitzer. Other kinds of writing operate in a space that has been cleared of competing voices, so pieces seem to have authority because of the silence around them. But some kinds of writing come with a little card that says, "This is my best understanding, right now, at the moment." No external claim of authority, but rather: "Take it or leave it, reader, here is what I have for you today. I'm thinking on my feet. I hope it's good, sure, but it's yours for the using now."

A different dynamic forms in writing without claims of authority, both at the writer's desk and in a reading and writing community. In 2005, Jay Rosen described the results for both writer and community, I believe, when solo and shared inquiry trump claims of authority:

• Sure, weblogs are good for making statements, big and small. But they also force re-statement. Yes, they're opinion forming. But they are equally good at unforming opinion, breaking it down, stretching it out, re-building it around new stuff. Come to some conclusions? Put them in your weblog, man, but just remember: it doesn't want to conclude.

This won't stop someone from replying with something dumb or hurtful, but it leaves the door open for conversation. It's hopeful and realistic about the ways insights build and accumulate when conditions are right. Dogma, by comparison, is pleased with itself and considers its thinking work to be done. [That's one style of talk radio, for example.]

• The image above spells out "blog" in semaphore.