|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
for what it's worth, my idiotprogrammer weblog (which has a literary focus) was older than all 4 litblogs listed as "the oldest litblogs"). Also, I think wood s lot is the oldest of them all (if you exclude Arts and Letters Daily).
This all points to the lunacy of trying to indicate examples of weblogs as wiki pages. Clearly there are dozens, if not hundreds (if not thousands) of notable litblogs out there. (If you remember, wiki policy forbids vanity pages--and the wiki police would probably consider a litblog entry as a backdoor way to have a wiki page). I think blogging and wiki are antithetical; it can only be resolved if wiki lightens up on its vanity/notability criteria; In the meantime, this page needs to have external links (not internal links for these webpages). See my ramblings on the subject here
I agree, blog links should as a general rule be external. There are millions of blogs out there and unless there are compelling reasons for a particular blog to have its own wikipage - and I can't think of one in the literary field that merits that (yet) - the policy should be to use only external links. However, things may change as blogs transition into spaces vacated by print media. --ANZLitLovers (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) It would be useful to have some expansion of the comment that some LitBlogs are run as professional income producing blogs, to include their business model and how the blog generates an income. (I don't have the expertise to write such an expansion.--ANZLitLovers (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be external, but scant examples are needed as external links. Rather, there needs to be an analysis of the blogs and their significance, removing most red links. This article is highly unencyclopaedic. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Once again, examples of significant blogs from beyond the UK and US have been removed. The significant development of Lit Blogs (as distinct from community reviews on sites like GoodReads and Amazon) is the growth of an *international* network, enabling serious readers to discover literature from other cultures. This is completely new, an example of consumer-driven globalization independent of the publishing industry (except insofar as some reviewers accept ARCs). Readers of serious literature have not been able to do this before, they have had to depend on the cultural gatekeepers in their local media. Restricting the *diversity* of examples of blogs in the way that's been done here closes those gates again, at least as far as WP is concerned. There *should be* examples from Canada, Australia, Africa, India etc, and there should be examples of lit bloggers specializing in books in translation because the impact of these blogs is that they are contributing to literary discourse across the globe. As for the gibe about being unencyclopedic, where else would one look but WP if trying to find a serious Lit Blog about, say, the literature of Nigeria? ANZLitLovers (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
And removed again. I thought WP wanted to encourage people with expertise to contribute, and I thought that WP was trying to do something about cultural inclusivity. Anyone who is using this encyclopedia to find resources for world literature needs an *expanded* version of what has been removed in so cavalier a manner.
ANZLitLovers (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)