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
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
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:
I'm able to view it without being subscribed.
--Majorly
altally wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote
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:
I'm able to view it without being subscribed.
Odd. I still can't see it at that link, but it turns out if I click through from Google, I can see the text:
http://www.google.com/#q=wsj+%22Wikipedia.org+is+the+fifth"
Overall, it seems like a pretty solid article. Much more nuanced and thoughtful than I was expecting from the video.
William
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
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
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
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
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
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
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the article. This is a digression.
This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?"
In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ article, or is it about the availability and verifiability of WSJ material as raised in Gerard's originating post for this thread?
Ec
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the article. This is a digression.
This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?"
In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ article, or is it about the availability and verifiability of WSJ material as raised in Gerard's originating post for this thread?
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The topic is about the WSJ's writings about Wikipedian participation. That is all.
-Chad
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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 ??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street Journal).
--Michael Snow
So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis of Wikipedia in several languages.
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this must be new research.
Steven
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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 ??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street Journal).
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days, functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia. Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to replenish our ranks.
FMF
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis of Wikipedia in several languages.
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this must be new research.
Steven
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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 ??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street Journal).
--Michael Snow
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
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to replenish our ranks.
At Wikimania 2009 it was noted there were declines across different language editions, which started happening at the same time. This suggest that it's not simply the "completeness" of a particular edition at play here, as the development cycle of each different language edition should be fairly distinct. Rather, the sharp declines across languages indicates it could be a platform feature (ie. software, policy, et al) or that there is an interdependency across the language groups or some other outlying variable.
The session at Wikimania about this: http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:221
I'll be doing a talk at SXSW 2010 about this next year, and I welcome any/all theories and what areas of research to pursue. http://bit.ly/8Hh52
-Andrew Lih
--- El lun, 23/11/09, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com escribió:
De: Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: lunes, 23 de noviembre, 2009 22:49 On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the
technical interface is
hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly
and democratic is
certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But
I think the tendency of
older users, or certain editorially minded users, to
squat on the project
and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up
into sticks is just as
much if not more responsible for driving away the new
users we need to
replenish our ranks.
At Wikimania 2009 it was noted there were declines across different language editions, which started happening at the same time. This suggest that it's not simply the "completeness" of a particular edition at play here, as the development cycle of each different language edition should be fairly distinct. Rather, the sharp declines across languages indicates it could be a platform feature (ie. software, policy, et al) or that there is an interdependency across the language groups or some other outlying variable.
The session at Wikimania about this: http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:221
I'll be doing a talk at SXSW 2010 about this next year, and I welcome any/all theories and what areas of research to pursue. http://bit.ly/8Hh52
Thank you very much, Andrew for your comments.
I'm really afraid I won't be able to attend to SXSW 2010. But, I'll attend for sure Wikimania 2010 next year, and I hope we'll have some time to reflect on these issues.
Best, Felipe.
-Andrew Lih
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I agree with you, David.
The usability work is a necessary precondition to bringing in new editors. It's essential for us to remove obvious, simple usability barriers that are impeding people who want to help.
But it's not the whole story, and I suspect that social barriers to participation will in the end prove much more difficult to overcome, compared with technical barriers.
Basically, there are a lot of people who would like to contribute to Wikipedia, but who find us impenetrable.
We know that new people's edits are increasingly reverted. Sometimes the reversions come without explanation; other times, they are explained curtly, unkindly, or using language (eg in templates) that newcomers don't understand. The net effect is that new people end up discouraged, and they don't stay.
In order to bring in and retain new editors, we need to make it possible for people to edit productively, without needing to develop deep expertise in our policies and practices. Frank Schulenburg's "bookshelf" project will create a series of orientation materials for new people: that will help some. But there is lots of other work that needs to happen, in my opinion: we need to encourage friendliness, we need to make the editing experience more supportive and enjoyable for everyone (not just new people), and we need to simplify policies and practices to make it easier for new people to engage easily and usefully.
People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.
Thanks, Sue
-----Original Message----- From: David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:24 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia
Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days, functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia. Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to replenish our ranks.
FMF
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.comwrote:
So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis of Wikipedia in several languages.
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this must be new research.
Steven
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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 ??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street Journal).
--Michael Snow
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
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Sue Gardner susanpgardner@gmail.com wrote:
People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.
FYI, the Strategy Wiki area Sue was talking about:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health
On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.
The URL is: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health
____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategy Project Wikimedia Foundation
philippe@wikimedia.org
mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
I agree that we need to recover from overly strict policies, treating newbies the same way we treat veteran editors, and a sense that there's no downside to quick deletion or aggressive "OBEY <cite>" messages.
To general ease of use:
Sue writes:
Basically, there are a lot of people who would like to contribute to
Wikipedia, but who find us impenetrable.
I've been working with swahili-speaking students over the past week introducing them to Wikipedia (as part of an article-writing contest sw:wp is running this winter). They're net-savvy, many maintain a blog, but they're not geeks. And they tend to be totally baffled by the Wikipedia editing process, from finding the 'edit' tab to adding sections or images to grasping the lifecycle of an article. That has significantly changed my impression of the current barrier to entry for using MediaWiki.
Cunctation writes:
One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a "good" article --
without
a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has fallen drastically.
Well put. *With* a radical improvement in editing technology (some other tools out there do a fairly good job at being friendly while offering sections, tables, media insertion, and even sidebars) this could make it uch easier for people to create pages they are proud of, which would make it easier to become a dedicated editor.
Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration, deletionism,
hierarchy,
protection, bureaucratization -- guarantee the decline of the Wikipedia community, if not the website itself.
Not all of them. There are also trends towards WikiProject and Portal growth, article assessment, categories, stub classification, infobox and navigation template standardization, and wikibot scripts and frameworks. These have all enhance the cohesion of the project, and supported the growth of meaningful subcommunities that are comfortable working in their own world. They have improved the experience of browsing the site tremendously, even as editing has become only more difficult.
We need to learn from our successes, and remedy our missteps -- being focusing pessimistically on the latter is neither balanced nor helpful.
SJ
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Sue Gardner susanpgardner@gmail.comwrote:
I agree with you, David.
The usability work is a necessary precondition to bringing in new editors. It's essential for us to remove obvious, simple usability barriers that are impeding people who want to help.
But it's not the whole story, and I suspect that social barriers to participation will in the end prove much more difficult to overcome, compared with technical barriers.
We know that new people's edits are increasingly reverted. Sometimes the reversions come without explanation; other times, they are explained curtly, unkindly, or using language (eg in templates) that newcomers don't understand. The net effect is that new people end up discouraged, and they don't stay.
In order to bring in and retain new editors, we need to make it possible for people to edit productively, without needing to develop deep expertise in our policies and practices. Frank Schulenburg's "bookshelf" project will create a series of orientation materials for new people: that will help some. But there is lots of other work that needs to happen, in my opinion: we need to encourage friendliness, we need to make the editing experience more supportive and enjoyable for everyone (not just new people), and we need to simplify policies and practices to make it easier for new people to engage easily and usefully.
People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.
Thanks, Sue
-----Original Message----- From: David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:24 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia
Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days, functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia. Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to replenish our ranks.
FMF
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did
a
cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis of Wikipedia
in
several languages.
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so
this
must be new research.
Steven
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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
??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall
Street
Journal).
--Michael Snow
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
Samuel Klein wrote:
I've been working with swahili-speaking students over the past week introducing them to Wikipedia (as part of an article-writing contest sw:wp is running this winter). They're net-savvy, many maintain a blog, but they're not geeks. And they tend to be totally baffled by the Wikipedia editing process, from finding the 'edit' tab to adding sections or images to grasping the lifecycle of an article. That has significantly changed my impression of the current barrier to entry for using MediaWiki.
I would love to see a more detailed writeup of how your impressions have changed, and examples of experiences that have changed them.
One of the most pernicious problems in software development is that you can't temporarily forget what you know. The closest you can come is to learn about the experiences of novices. In aid of that, I've seen real-life use cases provide a lot of insights.
William
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a friendly environment.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested editor.
What we really need are highly skilled encyclopedists doing their highly demanding work.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested editor.
I would like to know (or rather not) how Linux kernel would look like if its development would be more interested in giving advocacy to around going programmers than actual code. Yes, we do have programmers too. They just do not write code in C but natural languages. Both works require skills, both require enthusiasm, both require ability to accept critique of own work.
Like programming operating system kernel, writing encyclopedia is not for everyone. Everyone can become encyclopedist. Unfortunately, just very few people are able to achieve it in reasonable time.
Advocacy does not help. Wikipedia is not a society. Wikipedia does not need to have a growing number of editors. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. Wikipedia needs improving content. Only 100% focus on our goal can make it possible. We do have to be nice to newcomers. However, we do have to be strict to them as well. There is nothing wrong if newcomer's text is several times rejected before it is accepted. There is nothing wrong if a certain newcomer becomes offended and leave the project. Most probably he would do it anyway later, not writing a single usable line and leaving angry editors who spent time to help him, behind. This is encyclopedia. If anybody likes to be afraid of offending somebody he should go to some social network sites. Less "social" work means more time for work on encyclopedia.
If somebody wants to think what we can improve, I have a tip: we need schools for encyclopedists. There are many schools teaching programming. I don't know about any real or virtual institution which would provide education our newcomers desperately need.
Jiří
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
FYI, related this audio interview is up now:
Wikipedia Weekly podcast interviews researchers Felipe Ortega and Ed Chi about recent WSJ article re: volunteer departures
-Andrew
One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a "good" article -- without a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has fallen drastically.
Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration, deletionism, hierarchy, protection, bureaucratization -- guarantee the decline of the Wikipedia community, if not the website itself.
But so it goes.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.comwrote:
Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days, functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia. Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.
I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to replenish our ranks.
FMF
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling@gmail.com
wrote:
So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did
a
cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis of Wikipedia
in
several languages.
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so
this
must be new research.
Steven
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia@verizon.net
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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
??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall
Street
Journal).
--Michael Snow
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
--- El lun, 23/11/09, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com escribió:
De: Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com
I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this must be new research.
Hi, Steven.
I'm Felipe Ortega the author of the numbers and graphs you're mentioning.
Yes, these are recent updated results of our long-time research line about the Wikipedia community. They were firstly presented at WikiSym 2009, and before that on a coference in the Web Science Lecture Series, at Georgia Tech (both on last October).
As always, I just want to state that, even though the numbers doesn't seem really good for the sustainability of the project in the long term, I struggle daily to fight against fatalist claims or headlines speculating about the end of the project.
Wikipedia just entered a new phase. Our responsibility (as long-time Wikipedia researchers) is to find out the causes (not necessarily negative, please read a PDF summarizing a recent electronic interview for the Strategy plan, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews) and prevent any possible problems as much in advance as possible.
As usual, I'm at your disposal for any comments/clarifications.
Best, Felipe.
Steven
Felipe Ortega wrote:
Wikipedia just entered a new phase. Our responsibility (as long-time Wikipedia researchers) is to find out the causes (not necessarily negative, please read a PDF summarizing a recent electronic interview for the Strategy plan, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews) and prevent any possible problems as much in advance as possible.
Why not also conduct interviews with Wikipedia editors, either a random sample or targeted people (for example, people who had significant contribution and then stopped).
--- El mar, 24/11/09, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs escribió:
De: Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: martes, 24 de noviembre, 2009 08:50 Felipe Ortega wrote:
Wikipedia just entered a new phase. Our responsibility
(as long-time Wikipedia researchers) is to find out the causes (not necessarily negative, please read a PDF summarizing a recent electronic interview for the Strategy plan, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews) and prevent any possible problems as much in advance as possible.
Why not also conduct interviews with Wikipedia editors, either a random sample or targeted people (for example, people who had significant contribution and then stopped).
Yeah, this is another interesting approach.
The problem with it is that it's difficult to contact former editors/admins, once they abandon the project definitely (in my experience). Other strategies are too aggressive (like spamming talk pages) etc. and they should always be avoided.
We had an interesting discussion about this issue in an Open Space session at WikiSym 2009. It has resulted in a new project to try and improve these communication mechanisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Research
Regards, F.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Felipe Ortega wrote:
The problem with it is that it's difficult to contact former editors/admins, once they abandon the project definitely (in my experience). Other strategies are too aggressive (like spamming talk pages) etc. and they should always be avoided.
Some editors haven't supplied their email but some have and should be easy to contact that way.
Thanks for pointing out the interview and explaining the most current research Felipe. Most helpful!
Steven Walling
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Felipe Ortega wrote:
The problem with it is that it's difficult to contact former
editors/admins, once they abandon the project definitely (in my experience). Other strategies are too aggressive (like spamming talk pages) etc. and they should always be avoided.
Some editors haven't supplied their email but some have and should be easy to contact that way.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Michael Snow wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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 ??
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street Journal).
Of course you happen to live in the state that has the highest proportion of library use in the US! What has the state done right to encourage your expressed attitude?
It may at first seem that you and Gerard are speaking at cross purposes. There are some serious epistemological questions that lie at the root of this discussion. It's not just about the WSJ (which is a convenient example for this discussion), but about the entire question of how we store and retrieve knowledge. How we pay for its production is only one issue among many.
The stack of paper 1-centimeter-thick WSJs accumulated over 120 years at five issues per week would be 300 metres high, (tall enough to be marked on a map as a hazard to aviation) with no guarantee that the oldest copies at the bottom of the stack would not have been so deteriorated by internal acids as to be unusable. With the advent on on-line publication we have no way of judging the stability of its much larger content, or of being assured that it has not been edited to suit updated policy. Maintaining an edit log is not a standard operating procedure for most sites.
Perhaps we do need to become more familiar with libraries, but perhaps too librarians need to be more pro-active in communicating the changing nature of their resource to the public.
Ec
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
The request was to summarize the main points. That's certainly legal.
Nathan
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
We should ignore them because they want to get paid for their work? Why? Frankly, I think the NY Times and other companies should require payment for much of their work as well. I'm willing to pay for their content, its worth it.
Nathan
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
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
We should ignore them because they want to get paid for their work? Why? Frankly, I think the NY Times and other companies should require payment for much of their work as well. I'm willing to pay for their content, its worth it.
Nathan
Why should they make their website free to all anyway? Bit stupid for a business to do that when they could be making money.
And furthermore, I have generally found books make better sources than online newspapers.
--Majorly
altally wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen 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.
We should ignore them because they want to get paid for their work? Why? Frankly, I think the NY Times and other companies should require payment for much of their work as well. I'm willing to pay for their content, its worth it
Why should they make their website free to all anyway? Bit stupid for a business to do that when they could be making money.
And furthermore, I have generally found books make better sources than online newspapers.
I would be loath to muddle verifiability with the presence of a pay-wall. They are two different issues.
To whatever extent WSJ is a verifiable source it will remain so irrespective of its being freely available.
With so many sources available I would have no reason to to favour them with a subscription. Subscribing would be tantamount to saying that WSJ's opinion pieces are that much more valuable than other sources. The underlying information remains uncopyrightable. It's up to the free market to decide whether a paid subscription is worth it. They have a supply, but the demand may not be sufficient.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org