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
