And if the "guy on the internet" is notable enough to warrant citation as an interesting/informed opinion, then that's great. (i.e. the Howard Dean example)
But if one is assigning a POV to a non-notable figure, then that's not a good use of blogs as a source.
If Jimbo wrote something on his user page about Wikipedia, we could cite it in the article on Wikipedia. If I wrote something on my user page about Wikipedia, it doesn't belong in any article. Why? Because, in regards to this topic, I'm not at all notable. (Something which implies nothing negative, in my opinion) Allowing excessively non-notable opinions into articles goes down an unpleasant slippery slope: why require citation at all? "[[User:Fastfission]], of Wikipedia, thinks that Einstein was totally wrong in his math, though no physicists share that opinion." Instead of NPOV, you end up with Particularist POV -- a thousand POVs, none of which are notable. Which isn't the goal of NPOV, I'm fairly sure.
FF
On 10/19/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Alphax wrote:
What about if the author has blogged about (some current event) that they witnessed or attended?
That still seems like a shaky source. That's basically saying, "some guy on the internet claims he saw this happen". If I "blogged" about witnessing an event on my Wikipedia User page, could we cite that as a source?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l