#1 is often seen as an effort to police the bloggosphere but it is not. It is an effort to help bloggers and to improve the collective standard and reputation of wine blogging. Certainly, some may argue that if a lawyer and a journalist can become wine critics, then anyone can. I think we can do better. The blogging generation is inteligent and tech savvy and capable of assimilating wine science - as it applies to wine assessment.

I realize that this concept may be threatening to those who operate enthusiast-based and enthusiast-focused portals. However, the point of this Credibility Building process is not to shut anyone out or to undermine anybody.

The unfortunate truth is (and I am by no means making allusions about your site) that a number of wine sites and wine bloggers present wine information and education that is incorrect. This in turn becomes accepted and assimilated as ‘fact’ by newcomers to wine and that is how myths (or ‘ignorance’) grow.

If blogging is to be the next “it” medium – with clout and influence – then you would want those who give recommendations about wines (from a presumed point of expertise and authority) to know their stuff. That is not an expectation you’d have of a portal intended for no non-experts to exchange tips and experiences.

Many bloggers are seeking to monetize their blogs. I say: if someone wants to make money off recommendations and ‘expertise’ (as presented on their site), then they should demonstrate that they are knowledgeable.

It would certainly have to be voluntary, but it would only indicate that the author of the blog or site has demonstrated some minimum required level of wine knowledge and has been educated about and has demonstrated they understand journalistic ethics. It doesn’t guarantee good judgement and doesn’t guarantee any particular preference or direction.