That's excellent. It's even better when juxtaposed with more quotes from Stein's column (e.g., "I don't want to talk to you; I want to talk at you. A column is not my attempt to engage in a conversation with you," "I did a tiny bit of research for my column, so I'm already familiar with your brilliant argument," or "And then, for the rest of history, elementary school students learning about the Reformation would have nothing to make fun of. You can see how dangerous this all is." Stein IS working with an elementary school student's knowledge of Luther's theses, and this is the "tiny bit of research" he does.

I will make a three-point defense of Stein, though. First, the article is definitely taking a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top position and tone. The reference to Luther's theses is largely intended as off the cuff humor -- the conceit isn't scholarly or followed through. You could even say, with the "elementary school" and other remarks, that Stein is making fun of himself.

Second, if Stein's to be believed, he really does spend a lot of his time (more than five hours/week) responding personally to reader emails. So sending Stein an email isn't really useless.

Finally -- and this is my chief point -- doesn't the wiki or appended reader comment format largely free journalists of having to respond to the bulk of reader input? Readers, through either their own blogs or comments on the same site, are largely continuing the conversation on their own, without the direct input of the author. The true wiki-formation doesn't need the "presidency" of the Reverend Martin Luther -- every man is his own priest. And Calvin and Wycliffe and co. just start up their own sites.

On the other hand, what I've noticed in my own behavior is that I'll often blog or comment on somebody else's article, but hardly ever email an author directly to tell him or her what I think. Part of the electronic public wants to continue the conversation with the author, but many of us are having our own conversation about somebody's thoughts, deeds, or words without ANY reference or input from them directly. This is understandable when it's an author, politician, artist, or other public figure -- there's a tradition there of having some kind of divide between the people who talk and those who are talked about. When it's other people who are in a similar situation to our own, it's more than a little weird.

That last point is REALLY interesting:

Part of the electronic public wants to continue the conversation with the author, but many of us are having our own conversation about somebody's thoughts, deeds, or words without ANY reference or input from them directly.

I mean I wonder -- even if the author is totally accessible, does that matter? Is the point of commentary always (or even usually) to communicate with an author?

For me -- and I realize this could be totally idiosyncratic -- the point of commenting on things here is to share with the people that have gathered around Snarkmarket. And thus I am interested in what YOU have to say about my comments (however paltry), not what Stein or Brad deLong have to say to about them.

(I might be interested in what Martin Luther has to say, but alas.)

Perhaps that is an unhealthy relationship to other people's words & thoughts, though. Whaddya think?

I guess what interests me about it is the gap (if it is one) between two populations on the internet -- one who sees the internet as a means to a more direct connection with an author, and another who sees it as a means to carry on a less centralized conversation with their friends, peers, and strangers. I identify so much with the latter group that the former seems a little strange/superfluous to me. And Robin, it sounds like your behavior's pretty much like mine.

But sometimes I wonder whether I'm potentially closing myself off to something good by not trying to make that connection. I like that Malcolm Gladwell seems to read a lot of the comments on his blog and responds to them in his post -- which usually only makes his argument stronger. But I've never commented on his blog or sent him an email. Why not?

Or -- and I'm sure this has happened to Snarkmarket too -- a few months after I blogged about Peter Huber and Mark Mills's "Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power," I got a comment from Peter Huber, who'd been forwarded the link from a friend. He was very nice, and actually showed me that his thinking was more similar to mine than it appeared from the one article of his I'd seen. Why didn't I, besides blogging about it, write Huber directly? That would have been a different way to continue the conversation.

In person, I've always been pretty fearless about asking questions or addressing lecturers or keynote speakers or whatever. I had a philosophy professor, Bill Lawson, at MSU, who told me that whenever I had a question about somebody's scholarship, to try to email them or get them on the phone to ask them about it. They're almost always approachable and usually almost giddy to talk about what they've written. But in most cases, when somebody writes something, even in a blog, I almost never think about doing that, unless I know them personally. And that's a little strange.