[nerdponx]

You could publish a little webpage called "An historical note about the Docker prototype" under your own name, which you could then cite on Wikipedia.

I think it makes perfect sense as a general and strict policy for an encyclopedia. It would simply be too hard to audit every case to check if it's someone like you, or a crank.

[bombela]

Maybe I should write the story as a comment on hacker news, and link to it ;)

Joke aside, I should probably take up on your advice.

[a1369209993]

Yes. Do this (make sure it's not a top-level submission) and cite the HN comment specifically. Stupid rules deserve stupid compliance.

[nerdponx]

Why would a top-level submission not be valid on Wikipedia?

[a1369209993]

It (presumably) would; the problem is that it could be considered more dignified and academically respectable than a random forum comment.

[andrewf]

That may fall afoul of the "reputably published" requirement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

Basically, Wikipedia wants a primary source's claims to be vetted by a third party, either a "reputable publisher" or a secondary source.

[nerdponx]

Doesn't that disqualify just about any personal blog as a source, or any academic preprint (like on Arxiv)? I can't imagine that's widely enforced.

[3836293648]

Well, stuff like the ArXiv is exactly what they don't want cited

[dTal]

I don't see how requiring someone to set up a little webpage filters out cranks. If anything I might expect it to favor them.

[nerdponx]

The idea is that it's a separate, distinct source, which exists outside of and independently from the encyclopedia itself, and can be archived, mirrored, etc. Its veracity and usefulness can then be debated or discussed as needed.

[gmgmgmgmgm]

you'd have to publish under another name. reference to the author's blog is also disallowed