The flip side is, and knowing what social stereotype you might be perceived at is a good thing, “Oh look. It’s a nutter who thinks he knows something because he wrote a book. Big deal.” But that same person might say, “Oh look, an Internet kook” without that book.
In short, you can’t please all the critics. But criticizing an Internet post and criticizing a book are at two different levels in the minds of the populace. [Granted, a book is words printed on paper bound in cardboard and stitched together, although typically with rubber cement in mass market form…. or it is words downloadable into an electronic device in a form resembling that of a paper book. Fundamentally, no different. But putting concepts together in the format expected for a book is more time consuming than an Internet post and more difficult than putting together a Website on a subject [at least for me], so a book gathers one _some_ street cred. For some a little, for some a lot, but always some.].
If you get it picked up by Media, they usually provide the Blessing for authenticity. Being debated in academic journals with your name and a date next to it in parenthesis, along with a footnote referencing your work, is _probably_ about the best in authority figure you can get in modern society.
It’s the social side of writing. The annoying side. But I think it’s food for though.