On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
The problem of lack of availability has been with us
since the year
3000 BC. We can't solve every problem right away. That we can specify
a citation stating that *if* you had a way to get the item, you could
verify it, satisfies our policy requirement that an item is "published"
(made available to the public).
Satisfaction of the guideline (or discussion) issue that an item should
be widely available, would come from projects like Gutenberg and
WikiSource for publication of things like books and from newspaper
archives or JSTOR for publication of things like newspapers and
magazines.
That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in
considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora
Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for
you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see
worldcat.org).
Will Johnson
Agree with facts, disagree with conclusions. Policy exists to serve the
project. So we can't argue "from policy" on this one, the aim is still high
quality content and policy is still the ever-evolving way to get it. At
present a high proportion of cites are checkable online. Not all, but enough
to be viable if a proportion are not. Change that, and it may no longer be
viable, because too many cites will be not readily checkable.
The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the text,
or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check
isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July
2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many would
click the link.
So the /policy/ (if its in principle verifiable then it's fine) would not
adequately support the /project need/ (mis cites can usually be detected
fairly quickly in practice) and it would be policy that needed to change.
FT2