[WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model

[Surreptitiousness]

This conversation seems to be getting a little steeped in "attack" mode, 
doesn't it?  I mean, if we take a step back, do we verify everything we 
read ever period?  The fact that you just read this email seems to 
suggest no, actually we don't.  So my question at this point in the 
debate would be to ask myself why someone who lives "in a place where 
there isn't any library for hours (or  days even)" would be overly 
bothered about verifying right that second. Yes, sometimes you just 
don;t verify citations.  Wikipedia is built up through a kind of trust 
net, we're relying on other people to have checked the info out.  
Personally I've always taken the stance that we should cite any source, 
with as much detail as possible, and let the reader make the judgement 
as to reliability, verifiability and so on. Anyone who accepts anything 
at face value needs shooting, you ask me. I'll let Fred translate again 
if need be.  David Mitchell made a similar point a while back in The 
Observer.



Emily Monroe wrote:
> Will,
>
> If I may ask a question.
>
> What if I live in a place where there isn't any library for hours (or  
> days even) via whatever transportation I have available?
>
> What if I have a library...but it's under-resourced, under-paid and  
> there's no way I can really get books or newsletter to help cite  
> wikipedia?
>
> What would I do then? Do I just not verify citations?
>
> Emily
> On Aug 9, 2009, at 9:11 PM, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>
>   
>> In a message dated 8/9/2009 6:40:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> dan at tobias.name writes:
>>
>>
>>     
>>> So if I wanted to cite some rare book which I happened to know of
>>> only one copy in existence, located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole
>>> Station in Antarctica, it would be up to you to arrange travel there
>>> to check it.>>
>>>       
>> -------------------------
>>
>> Items of this level of rarity fail our test that the item is publicly
>> accessible.  We never really set where the bar should be, but we all  
>> seemed to
>> agree (at the time) that an item should be generally available in  
>> some way.
>> It's too onorous to require a random editor to have to verify  
>> something
>> against a single copy.
>>
>> By the way, you would think that if something this rare were really  
>> worth
>> citing, that it would have already been published in a scholarly  
>> edition.
>> Your example is a bit eccentric, I wonder if you have an actual case  
>> in mind.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> **************
>> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
>> steps!
>> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx 
>> ?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&
>> bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115)
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>