On 3/14/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Anthony wrote:
We could always set up the blog for them.
That's another form of "you can't fix your article unless you jump through these ridiculous hoops". Finding someone in an all-volunteer Wikipedia willing to set up a blog for a random complainer is at least as difficult as setting up the blog himself.
Well, I certainly disagree. Finding one person out of the thousands of volunteers who are capable of doing this seems much easier than teaching a random complainer how to do it himself.
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.
Or we could set up a wiki which allows original research, and which can be referenced from Wikipedia.
For that matter, what's the difference between this, and putting some lines on a Wikipedia talk page, saying "this type of talk page is to be treated as a wiki which allows OR and can be referenced from Wikipedia"?
Not much except for precedent (and correspondingly a set of rules and guidelines governing the use of talk pages in such a way). It also seems like an awfully poor way to organize things. If you're going to borrow a namespace, the meta namespace would probably be better, as it'd have much less overlap.
Anthony