On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen > <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > 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. > > Nathan >
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. --Majorly _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
