[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

[Ray Saintonge]

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