What constitutes 'official?' Who gets to make that determination?

While it's obvious that certain journals have much better reputations than others, what harm can there be in having more publications? Authority is fine and all, but letting more voices be heard (by those that choose to read their stuff) is, IMO, a laudable goal.

This of course opens up a huge epistemological can-o-worms: Whose voices constitute authority? Why do we grant certain voices more authority than others? If certain voices have 'authority,' doesn't that inherently mean that certain voices are less worthy than others?

Let a thousand flowers bloom, me thinks. Look at the flowers that interest you.