The problem with integrating wiki and weblogs isn't technical. We value both because they give different ways of thinking about information. I put stuff into my weblog but not my wiki when I think it's ephemeral and can safely be forgotten. (In my mindset, and on Blogger, things that are merely in archives aren't easily revisitable.)
But then I discover that I was wrong. That they weren't so ephemeral. They are important and as relevant as some of the trivia that goes into the wiki.
So how do I judge?
What I fear is that when I make the ephemeral judgement, I'm really saying that I don't know how to classify this fragment, and to fit it into the general pattern. The only way I can think of addressing it, is that it's now. On the other hand, the most insignificant word or two that I can see how to classify and connect, goes immedietely into the wiki.
This is why even wikilogs / blikis have an awkward distinction between those pages who's names are WikiWords, and those who's names are munged dates. You can have two different mindsets (WikiMind, BlogMind) when you enter the data.
It also suggests the ideal Wikilog / Bliki technical functionality. The capacity to add posts NOW under a DateName, then rename those posts later (with all other links automatically updated of course ;-)
ThoughtStorms: WeblogsAndWiki: "