Edit: Referencing your own blog fall outside of Wikipedia's reliable source rule, it would also fall foul of the important Conflict of Interest rules.
After making this video there came up some discussion around the ethics of blogging and referencing yourself through Wikipedia.
Some interesting news is that I got an email from Peter Wagstaff the other day
As you may be aware, in mid-June I updated the wikipedia entry for Mother Energy Drink after reading Josh's posting on the issue in his CIIMS blog (Current Issues in Marketing Strategy) on 11 June. See http://www.ciims.net/2008/06/mother-of-all-relaunches.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_(energy_drink)
On the 30th of July, somebody else edited the entry, removing the reference to CIIMS, and replacing it with a Fairfax newspaper report, dated 19 June, eight days LATER than Josh's report. The comment this
user made in wikipedia was that they were replacing a blog reference with a non-blog reference, as the original posting was from a "non-reliable source".
Today I have restored the reference to CIIMS, with a notation stating that a blog is as reliable, and sometimes MORE reliable than a newspaper, so the earlier reference should be retained.
It may be worthwhile reading wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS - do you think that this may need changing, given the rise of reliable bloggers?