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