On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Not really. If there are no reputable sources for a
topic, then that
topic may not be suitable for Wikipedia. For example, if the only
source for a subject is a bunch of USENET postings or a couple of
blogs, the subject may not pass the threshold of notability.
[[Spoo]] is a featured article whose references are mostly Comuserve,
GEnie and Usenet forum postings. Those postings turned out to be
reputable sources for information on Spoo, after intense scrutiny by
large numbers of editors. There are even articles that are about
entities that are solely or primarily confined to Usenet itself;
[[Kibology]] for example. It'd be hard to have any sort of article
there
at all without basing it on Usenet postings in some way.
Which is, I presume, why Jossi used the word "may".
As usual the exception proves the rule; the vast majority of things
verifiable solely from blogs are indeed uttery unsuitable.
If there are multiple sources and one of them is a USENET post or a
blog, we *may* include that posting as an additional source. But if
that is the *only* source upon which we make an assertion in an
article, in particular when the subject is controversial, we should
deny the use of such source on the basis of lack of reliability.
For articles that there are not controversial, and that there is
consensus from involved and knowledgeable editors, exceptions could
be made, of course.
-- Jossi