[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

[David Goodman]

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 at 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 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>