[WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model

[wjhonson at aol.com]

I'm not really seeing any solution in your words.
Would you then change policy to state that if an item is behind a 
subscription wall, then it cannot be cited at all, regardless of 
whether others can access it freely (with an existing subscription, 
library card, or on site).  Is that what you'd propose?  If not, then 
what?

Regardless of how many items go behind a subscription wall (provided 
there is also a non-subscription way to access them in some manner), 
there will always be some who have the subscription.  In those cases, 
the online link is only a convenience for those who can use it.

Will Johnson



-----Original Message-----
From: FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model










On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM,  <wjhonson at aol.com> wrote:

> The problem of lack of availability has been with us since the year
> 3000 BC.  We can't solve every problem right away.  That we can 
specify
> a citation stating that *if* you had a way to get the item, you could
> verify it, satisfies our policy requirement that an item is 
"published"
> (made available to the public).
>
> Satisfaction of the guideline (or discussion) issue that an item 
should
> be widely available, would come from projects like Gutenberg and
> WikiSource for publication of things like books and from newspaper
> archives or JSTOR for publication of things like newspapers and
> magazines.
>
> That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in
> considering whether or not we should cite it.  Even the library of 
Bora
> Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for
> you, provided you have the citation and the repository location (see
> worldcat.org).
>
>  Will Johnson



Agree with facts, disagree  with conclusions. Policy exists to serve the
project. So we can't argue "from policy" on this one, the aim is still 
high
quality content and policy is still the ever-evolving way to get it. At
present a high proportion of cites are checkable online. Not all, but 
enough
to be viable if a proportion are not. Change that, and it may no longer 
be
viable, because too many cites will be not readily checkable.

The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the 
text,
or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now 
click-and-check
isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 
July
2009 P.4B" (however theoretically they can find a copy) whereas many 
would
click the link.

So the /policy/ (if its in principle verifiable then it's fine) would 
not
adequately support the /project need/ (mis cites can usually be detected
fairly quickly in practice) and it would be policy that needed to 
change.

FT2
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l