[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

[Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)]

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 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 at 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 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
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>