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 <[email protected]> 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) <[email protected]> > >> 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 < >> [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 >> > >> > 2009/11/23 William Pietri <[email protected]> >> > >> > > 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 >> > > [email protected] >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
