How valuable the information it contains is another matter. But that is both the joy and the dilemma of the Internet. Asking us to consider how do we validate what other people have posted is a good thing because it forces us to think rather than accepting the received wisdom of so-called experts (x = the unknown quantity; spurt = a drip under pressure). This questioning and reflection about what others post fits nicely with Reg Revans's thinking about Action Learning which he describes as: L = P + Q.
L = Learning
P = programmed knowledge (what we have learnt through books, manuals etc)
Q = questions

Questioning received wisdom is an excellent way of learning and validating what we have read or heard. As Charles Handy puts it "learning is not finding out what other people already know but is the process of solving our own problems." So it is with the Internet and blogs -- you have to figure out what is wheat and what is chaff but the amazing thing is you may be getting opinions far beyond your own organisation if not national boundaries.

Perhaps the concerns about security and blogging derive from the point highlighted on Wikipedia in relation to cases where litigation occurred. Again, highlighting these issues is not a bad thing since it reminds bloggers to be circumspect before damning, deriding another's opinion or revealing issues deemed not for public release. Flirting with publicity even via cyberspace neither guarantees immunity from prosecution nor ensures that your arrow hits the mark. What exactly the law is in relation to blogging is debatable and best answered by those who are legally qualified. But if you breach the law then you should be aware of the risks – ignorance of the law is unlikely to be a valid plea.

Blogs are a natural progression from discussion boards which had their so-called posters and lurkers -- all too often the former criticised the latter for being on the one hand too reticent while on the other snapping up good ideas when they were posted. Such a view overlooks the point that applying good ideas tends to be context specific and explicit knowledge provides no guarantee that the necessary tacit knowledge will develop -- a good recipe by itself does not make a good chef.

Upbringing and schooling can make Protocol for behaviour on the Internet seem instinctively appropriate. However, the Internet is rewriting the rules - that is if they are written at all anymore some may want them to be explicit but they are largely tacit. That said, not seeing a person when we communicate with them is not a reason to be discourteous. Arguably it is an even better reason to state one's opinion vigorously, passionately but always politely. All our instincts encourage us to watch and observe the people with whom we communicate -- such instincts serve us poorly in cyberspace so we need to adopt and then adapt new models to gauge appropriate behaviour.

David