Hi all, I have access to a report published by Gartner (a giant in the database research world). As I understand, it's publicly available - for a significant cost. I also believe that I am allowed to privately distribute it under certain circumstances, probably including verifying that I'm not making up stuff supposedly in it.
It's an incredibly detailed analysis of 20 or ETL tools, and would be very useful for articles such as [[Extract, transform, load]] and articles on individual ETL tools. But, is it verifiable?
Steve
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I have access to a report published by Gartner (a giant in the database research world). As I understand, it's publicly available - for a significant cost. I also believe that I am allowed to privately distribute it under certain circumstances, probably including verifying that I'm not making up stuff supposedly in it.
It's an incredibly detailed analysis of 20 or ETL tools, and would be very useful for articles such as [[Extract, transform, load]] and articles on individual ETL tools. But, is it verifiable?
Steve
If it's published, it should count. "Easily available" isn't a criterion. Is it likely to be in university libraries? Is it something that professionals in the field are likely to have? Then it easily meets WP:V, IMO
Ian
Not all books can be found for free in a library. They're still verifiable. I think authority on the subject would thrump cost in this case anyway, if cost even played a role.
Mgm
On 4/18/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/18/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I have access to a report published by Gartner (a giant in the database research world). As I understand, it's publicly available - for a significant cost. I also believe that I am allowed to privately distribute it under certain circumstances, probably including verifying that I'm not making up stuff supposedly in it.
It's an incredibly detailed analysis of 20 or ETL tools, and would be very useful for articles such as [[Extract, transform, load]] and articles on individual ETL tools. But, is it verifiable?
Steve
If it's published, it should count. "Easily available" isn't a criterion. Is it likely to be in university libraries? Is it something that professionals in the field are likely to have? Then it easily meets WP:V, IMO
Ian _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 18/04/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
If it's published, it should count. "Easily available" isn't a criterion. Is it likely to be in university libraries? Is it something that professionals in the field are likely to have? Then it easily meets WP:V, IMO
Likely? I'm not sure. They could probably track down a copy with a bit of effort. But yeah, I suppose it is "verifiable", with full citation details.
Thanks for the replies!
Steve
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 18/04/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
If it's published, it should count. "Easily available" isn't a criterion. Is it likely to be in university libraries? Is it something that professionals in the field are likely to have? Then it easily meets WP:V, IMO
Likely? I'm not sure. They could probably track down a copy with a bit of effort. But yeah, I suppose it is "verifiable", with full citation details.
And quotes! Don't forgot about quoting the bits that back up what you are claiming. While this is nice for web pages, it's particularly important for less accessible sources; it lets the job of verification be divided between subject experts - who can judge if the provided quotes back up what they claim to back up, and wiki gnomes who can verify that the provided quotes do actually exist in the cited sources and are not mistyped or fake. Quotes are your friends! ;-)
Jesse Weinstein
Yeah, that probably works quite well with <ref> tags. Then you can put the quote in and it becomes a footnote, without breaking up the text of thearticle.
Steve
On 18/04/06, Jesse W jessw@netwood.net wrote:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 18/04/06, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
If it's published, it should count. "Easily available" isn't a criterion. Is it likely to be in university libraries? Is it something that professionals in the field are likely to have? Then it easily meets WP:V, IMO
Likely? I'm not sure. They could probably track down a copy with a bit of effort. But yeah, I suppose it is "verifiable", with full citation details.
And quotes! Don't forgot about quoting the bits that back up what you are claiming. While this is nice for web pages, it's particularly important for less accessible sources; it lets the job of verification be divided between subject experts - who can judge if the provided quotes back up what they claim to back up, and wiki gnomes who can verify that the provided quotes do actually exist in the cited sources and are not mistyped or fake. Quotes are your friends! ;-)
Jesse Weinstein
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l