Glad to help. However I'm not really into Wikipedia (except as an infrequent reader) and I don't know the explicit and implicit rules for accepting contributions.

Hence some questions.

Are blog posts considered relevant reference material for the bibliography, given conditions like – for example - 'written by acknowledged experts', 'well documented', 'interesting analysis so never mind we don't know the writer' and so on? So: can we include references to blogposts in the bibliography, and is not why not, and if so, according to which criteria?

Also, there is a note on top of the article, stating "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources." What is meant by 'single source'? I checked the history of the article and it seems to me that quite some people have contributed. So does 'single source' mean that the ideas stem mainly from one person? And that, for example, an early article about evolution theory would be disqualified because Darwin would be referenced a lot and perhaps even contributed himself (aargh, the horror)? And why would more 'appropriate citations' help to improve the quality of an article? What would be deemed 'appropriate'? And why citations, when anyone interested can read the referenced articles, granted they are available on line and linked to from within the Wikipedia article, and given that relevant phrases can be highlighted and commented on through apps like Diigo?

Might it be the case that Wikipedia editors still stick to paper print conventions and have not quite adjusted to the possibilities of internet? And might it be that contributors are too optimistic about distributed intelligence and crowd sourcing?

In a way, Wikipedia seems an anachronism. I mean: it's good to codify and reference static stuff; things everyone agrees on. But it seems less good at capturing ideas in flux, development, conflict. Imagine an article on Copernicus during the Middle Ages. It would have been edited out of existence.

Just some thoughts and questions. Again: I'll be glad to help.

Looks like its OK now Mireille
Wikipedia has its own rules, it takes time to get used to them. Yes you can quote blogs, but they are more likely to be contested as authority over an established article.

I am attempting to make some sense of schooling and its complexity. I am particularly interested in promoting some rethinking of change management in relation to schools. I notice I am bringing together complexity and systems thinking (particularly Deming's work). I suspect that much of his philosophy is valid for responding to the complexity of human 'systems'.

My latest post (17 Nov 2008) makes reference to Cynefin.

Since I am muddling along largely in isolation (Tasmania), I am interested in receiving any feedback - I am attempting to make things better not worse.

Ivan