Defining the expert

I read an article awhile ago that described how to tell if someone was a legit social media expert or not and I was disturbed to read that the first qualification the author listed as mandatory for a social media expert was a blog.

First of all, claiming that you can define a social media expert in 10 questions is a load of $%*&. The best part about the interweb is that there is so much information and so many different groups of people that "experts" take on many shapes and sizes. No one shoe fits all scenario here.

Second, a blog does not an expert make. It emphasizes a particular skill, writing. And while writing is incredibly important in the world of the interweb, it should not be the one, lone skill used to pick out "expert" individuals in a field.

Writing is a form of communication but it's very specific form. It is used to export/push information. I write now not taking in any new information. Think of it like this, if writing was my only skill, I would reach the end of my life with the same amount of information I started with and a lot of pen-on-paper.

On the other hand, reading is an import skill; I expand my base of knowledge by taking in new information. And by definition, an "expert" is someone with knowledge derived from training or experience. Therefore, if someone is a great writer but lacked listening/reading/observing skills, then how could they ever be an expert at anything.

Now (full disclosure) I might be getting a bit defensive because my writing skills are somewhat lacking, but that said, to say that someone might lack credibility because they have not been "writing" for over 2 years is a bit absurd. It would be similar if I said that if you don't have 5,000 friends on Facebook then you are not an expert. Yes, the social skills and writing skills are important but they don't create the whole picture when it comes to your knowledge about a particular subject.

Alright. I am done.