Take a look, for example, [at] the Civil War blogging done by Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic… . Coates is not an his­torian, but he’s a smart guy committed to learning. He often blogs on classics of Civil War history, like Roll Jordan Roll or Battle Cry of Freedom. He establishes a topic, or a problem, or a point of view, and then lets commentators have at it… . Coates actively moderates the discussion, pruning out cranks and the uncivil, commenting frequently. The result is not academic history, but it’s a stunningly high level of historical discourse conducted in real time. The reviewers—the people who post comments—have the satisfaction of participating in a live dia­logue rather than a dead archive. Coates, the “editor,” gets to foster real collaborative education. Suppose the job of editing and commenting looked more like this? Moder­ated, live interactions, and an ongoing discussion among peers. An editor might choose one article a week. He or she would post the article with a comment on its merits/weaknesses. Readers could then comment in real time, acting as peer reviewers, with the editor acting to “prune” and police the comments. All read­ers would see opinion evolving, and see the process of peer review in action.