If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the article. This is a digression.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New Zealand .... libraries ... also books are available for years the copy of the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ?? Thanks. GerardM
2009/11/23 David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com
And the WSJ can be found in essentially every library in the English speaking world also. There is thus a free way to verify--much more easily than 99.99% of books.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi. Maybe. However the request was to make available articles that are not freely available.. Posting them somewhere so that people who do not
have
access can formulate an opinion is probably not even legally allowed.
A book can be found in a library and consequently there is a way to
verify.
Thanks, GerardM
2009/11/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com
By that logic, a book, which costs money to buy, would never be a "verifiable source" either.
We might *prefer* to cite free (gratis) accessible sources over
others,
all
things being equal, but the fact that a source is behind a paywall
does
not
negate verifiability.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Given that the WSJ is making a lot of noise about moving all its
content
behind a paywall and is planning to remove its headlines from the
"prying
eyes" of Google, I think it is appropriate to honour their wish and
no
longer consider the WSJ as a verifiable source. It is appropriate
because
it is the direct consequence of their actions.
When this means that the blogs are part and parcel of this wish,
then
we
should not try to circumvent this even when they write about us. Thanks, GerardM
2009/11/23 William Pietri william@scissor.com
A reporter pal points out to me that the Wall Street Journal has
a
front page story on Wikipedia: "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia
Ages".
Alas, it's subscriber-only:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html
There's also a publicly viewable blog article "Is Wikipedia Too Unfriendly to Newbies?", and an interview with their reporters:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/11/23/is-wikipedia-too-unfriendly-to-newbie...
http://online.wsj.com/video/news-hub-wikipedia-volunteers-quit/BB9E24E7-2A18...
I suspect it's nothing we haven't been talking about for a while,
but
if
anybody with access has a chance to summarize the main points, I'd
find
that helpful in replying to the friends who will inevitably be
asking
about this. If not because of this article, then from the other reporters that I presume will be joining in shortly.
William
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l