[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

[Gerard Meijssen]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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-newbies/
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://online.wsj.com/video/news-hub-wikipedia-volunteers-quit/BB9E24E7-2A18-4762-A55E-4D9142975029.html
> > >
> > > 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>