Barbara Fister writes a very thoughtful post in the ACRL blog on social networking and scholarship, summarizing historian Roy Rosenzweig's article, Can History be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past," and Nature's take on the evolution of peer review from their peer review debate pages. Barbara didn't mention that the Nature piece was written by Wired editor-in-chief Chris Anderson. Anderson is also the author of The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. (This book is getting a lot of buzz in the right places, so I'm putting it on my nightstand stack.)
Interesting that both of these articles appeared in highly respected peer reviewed journals. Because that makes them more credible, see? (Subtle, I am not). Actually, to be accurate, Anderson's comment was published in the web debate on peer review sponsored by Nature, NOT in the peer reviewed (I was going to say print) journal at all.