[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you implying that, because linguistics is "subjective* and diachronic", we should somehow expect it, on account of these attributes, to be also informal?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm saying the exact opposite, in plain English.

There is a difference between linguistic research which collects evidence that INCLUDES anecdotes and oral histories in a larger, more formal context, and a thread on the internet that contains ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE - informal, random, unverifiable, etc.

One is useful and one is not.

In other words, there is a difference between COLLECTING ANECDOTES in the course of research, to analyze their structure, significance, content etc, which is what linguists do, and being ANECDOTAL, meaning comprised totally of anecdotes, hearsay, and informal information. A paper on linguistics in any respected journal will not be described as 'anecdotal.'