Re: [Foundation-l] Building The Great Monument of Bureaucracy

In a message dated 11/22/2009 10:48:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, smole...@eunet.rs writes: > Digitize them and publish them on the Internet, but > insure them, so that if heirs ever appear a reasonable royalty may be > paid to them.>> Heirs do not necessarily get any benefit from copyrighted

[Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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 Unfrien

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri wrote: > 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 > I'm ab

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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,

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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 c

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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 t

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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. Tha

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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 wrote:

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

altally wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri wrote >> 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/SB1258939811837

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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 ?? T

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen 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

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on 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 wrote: > Hoi, > I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New > Zealand libraries ... also books are av

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > 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 ?? > I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than just

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative analysis of Wikipedia in several languages. I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or an

[Foundation-l] strategy question of the week

We started a new regular feature on the strategy wiki: Question of the week. Every Monday, the page will highlight some data and open up a question for discussion. In the middle of the week, we'll draw up scenarios based on the discussion, and ask people to prioritize them. We'll also discuss these

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

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 "pryin

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors, and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing contribut

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: > If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the > article. This is a digression. > > This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?" In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ article, or is it

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: >> If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the >> article.  This is a digression. >> >> > This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?" > > In the present circumstance

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Michael Snow wrote: > Gerard Meijssen wrote: > >> 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 ?? >> > I don't know about "every" library, but l

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

I agree with you, David. The usability work is a necessary precondition to bringing in new editors. It's essential for us to remove obvious, simple usability barriers that are impeding people who want to help. But it's not the whole story, and I suspect that social barriers to participation wi

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, David Moran wrote: > > I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is > hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is > certainly a concern that needs to be addressed.  But I think the tendency of > older users,

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > > People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy > wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking > at these issues.  I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between > meetings)

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a "good" article -- without a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has fallen drastically. Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration, delet

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: > > People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the > strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that > will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my > Blackberry and between meetings)

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

--- El lun, 23/11/09, Steven Walling escribió: > De: Steven Walling > > I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any > conclusions in the > thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the > Journal, so this > must be new research. > Hi, Steven. I'm Felipe Ortega the author

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

--- El lun, 23/11/09, Andrew Lih escribió: > De: Andrew Lih > Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia > Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Fecha: lunes, 23 de noviembre, 2009 22:49 > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, > David Moran > wrote: > > > > I think a lot of attention is p

Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Felipe Ortega wrote: > Wikipedia just entered a new phase. Our responsibility (as long-time > Wikipedia researchers) is to find out the causes (not necessarily negative, > please read a PDF summarizing a recent electronic interview for the Strategy > plan, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/I