"Expertise" is relative, of course, depending on how much value someone might extract from it versus the value they might extract from other sources ostensibly

"Expertise" is relative, of course, depending on how much value someone might extract from it versus the value they might extract from other sources ostensibly covering the same topic. It also depends on context. And I'd argue that static content by experts isn't going to be sufficient in the world we're headed to. Eventually, nearly all the knowledge in every known domain will be accessible to almost anyone. In such a world, the expert's value is only partially based on the quality or depth of his knowledge; it's rooted more deeply in his ability to synthesize the existing knowledge rapidly and innovatively, or to generate new knowledge. (Having a massive library is almost less important than knowing which shelf holds the book you're looking for at any given time, and in this sense, domain/subject expertise will still be highly valuable). Domain experts won't disappear, because acquiring mastery of a subject involves countless hours of practice or study. But as far as the consumer web is concerned, "expertise" is going to become a fuzzy and highly relative target. If anything, I think the future of blogging (if not publishing altogether) will shift intellectual capital away from "experts" and toward innovators and creators: people who aren't just treasure troves of knowledge, but who can apply that knowledge in fascinating and creative ways. Perhaps I'm quibbling over the semantics of the word "expert." But it's a word we should quibble over, because it's been a buzzword for quite some time now, and no two people seem to agree on what it means to them. That, in and of itself, is very interesting.