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.meijs...@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 <dgoodma...@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.meijs...@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) <newyorkb...@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.meijs...@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 <will...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > >> > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > foundation-l mailing list > > >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> foundation-l mailing list > > >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
