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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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