On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
Even if
this is true, isn't a line on a Wikipedia talk page saying "so-
and-so told Wikipedia that... and it was verified to come from him by ..."
basically a one line blog hosted by Wikipedia anyway? (At least if we link
to the diff, which nobody can edit.)
I dunno. Why don't you ask on the talk page for WP:ATT? I certainly
wouldn't call a line written on a talk page a blog, but I'm not
familiar enough with WP:ATT to say whether or not it falls under the
term as used there.
You are answering the wrong question. I'm not asking if it's a blog by our
definition; I'm asking there's any *practical difference* between it and a
blog. What characteristics does the line on the talk page have, that the blog
does not, that would justify why we'd *want* the rules to prohibit one but
not the other?
Well, I'm still the wrong one to answer, because I don't think a blog
is per say justifiable in the first place. Only if we're talking
about a well established blog with an author who is a reliable source
for the fact in question do I think we should be relying on blogs.
But apparently the rules say otherwise. So if you want to know why
the rules prohibit one but not the other, ask the people who made the
rules - it wasn't me.
Anthony