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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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://online.wsj.com/video/news-hub-wikipedia-volunteers-quit/BB9E24E7-2A1…
> > >
> > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l