I seriously doubt that any rule says that sources must be free. It helps in
double-checking some statements if other people can at least see the
abstract of an article, which is why pubmed...gov is so good. Old books
might be better than new studies in some cases, and even when those are
public
Why might it not become as reliable as any other magazine discussing
media? It depends on the quality of the editing.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> The r
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> The reason for my objection, is that we, our project, should not put
> ourselves into a position where we are becoming the main source of financial
> support for some newly-created effective auxiliary. I hope we can all see,
> how
> some obscure onl
> I apologise for making it unclear that I was talking about the tone
> of the conversation as a whole rather than your comments specifically.
I think you're right. You WERE talking about the conversation as a
whole. However, I interpreted your comments as "This whole debate is
in attack mod
Emily Monroe wrote:
>> This conversation seems to be getting a little steeped in "attack"
>> mode, doesn't it?
>>
>
> That was an honest, legitimate hypothetical question of mine. I
> addressed it primarily to Will, and secondarily to everybody. I never
> mean to attack anyone. I wouldn'
> This conversation seems to be getting a little steeped in "attack"
> mode, doesn't it?
That was an honest, legitimate hypothetical question of mine. I
addressed it primarily to Will, and secondarily to everybody. I never
mean to attack anyone. I wouldn't live with my conscious if I had
l
This conversation seems to be getting a little steeped in "attack" mode,
doesn't it? I mean, if we take a step back, do we verify everything we
read ever period? The fact that you just read this email seems to
suggest no, actually we don't. So my question at this point in the
debate would be
In a message dated 8/9/2009 9:59:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
> Most of these
> rare works will be in large cities where there will also be a
> concentration of people available to verify the material. For much of
> our material the acceptance criterion validly re
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/9/2009, bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
>
>> What if I live in a place where there isn't any library for hours (or
>> days even) via whatever transportation I have available?
>>
>> What if I have a library...but it's under-resourced, under-paid and
In a message dated 8/9/2009 7:42:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
> What if I live in a place where there isn't any library for hours (or
> days even) via whatever transportation I have available?
>
> What if I have a library...but it's under-resourced, under-paid and
Will,
If I may ask a question.
What if I live in a place where there isn't any library for hours (or
days even) via whatever transportation I have available?
What if I have a library...but it's under-resourced, under-paid and
there's no way I can really get books or newsletter to help cite
In a message dated 8/9/2009 6:40:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
d...@tobias.name writes:
> So if I wanted to cite some rare book which I happened to know of
> only one copy in existence, located at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole
> Station in Antarctica, it would be up to you to arrange travel the
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:27:16 -0400, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> You're right. Several years ago, we had discussed this very issue.
>> That nothing "free" is really free is you have to pay to travel *to* it.
>> IIRC we basically agreed tha
On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:27:16 -0400, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> You're right. Several years ago, we had discussed this very issue.
> That nothing "free" is really free is you have to pay to travel *to* it.
> IIRC we basically agreed that traveling about, is just part of your
> normal life.
So if
Cacharoth has it correct.
My response was in three parts, part one only refers to those items which
*solely* have an online life and no offline life whatsoever. That first part
is what a few people have objected to, but they objected to something which
I did not say.
Let's say that someone dec
;re being coy rather than
blunt - *you* certainly know what you're talking about, so please tell us.
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "English Wikipedia"
Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Su
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 2:49 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> The only paid references that should be removed are those which merely
> duplicate exactly what is available from other sources. For example,
> if a story is reprinted in many newspapers, we should try to find one
> which is free.
I think
In a message dated 8/8/2009 6:50:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
> A reference that requires payment is still a reference and there is no
> reason to remove it. Almost always, these paid sources are subscribed
> to by libraries to which many hundreds of people here have
A reference that requires payment is still a reference and there is no
reason to remove it. Almost always, these paid sources are subscribed
to by libraries to which many hundreds of people here have access, and
can be accessed at least by those members of that institution, and
often by public visi
David my response was in *three* parts not one. You must consider all
three parts as one whole response, not each one as a seperate response.
Part 1 was solely dealing with items which have a subscription wall and
only live on the internet and have no other source whatsoever. Can you name
one
I think David you have not understood at all what I said.
Please explain your objection in a manner highlighting what you think I
said, and why you would object to what I said.
Will
**
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/pro
vicious and exacting I know. We should be setting the bar for
>> others to follow, not being lazy in citation practice.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bod Notbod
>> To: English Wikipedia
>> Sent: Fri
n
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bod Notbod
> To: English Wikipedia
> Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:33 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2 wrote:
>
>> The purposes of citati
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote:
> *However* perhaps we could create a tag,
> coincidental with20{{fact}} something like {{verify?}} which would cross
> over to a page like "Verification Requests By Date". Any established
> Wikipedia could take a request, do the lookup, and clear the tag.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In addition to that, we have great extra repositories for checking the
> existence of a purported print source at amazon.com and also at abe.com
> and alibris.com Amazon tends toward in-print titles, while abe.com
> tends toward out-of-print titles, including very rare
Carcharoth wrote:
> And I
> shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It
> would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5
> people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as
> "verified".
Hmm, in my experience the majority of finds of inaccura
Cary Bass wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the
>> ceiling.
>>
> You've tested this? :-)
>
>
My wife wishes I hadn't so often.
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedi
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote:
> At some point, we had a project page where you could list your services
> to do lookups in various sources. I don't really know if that got a
> head of steam or died the death of obscurity. I thought I had posted
> myself there, but I've never gotten a r
-
From: Carcharoth
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 6:33 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote:
> At some point, we had a project page where you could list your
services
> to do looku
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wrote:
> At some point, we had a project page where you could list your services
> to do lookups in various sources. I don't really know if that got a
> head of steam or died the death of obscurity. I thought I had posted
> myself there, but I've never gotten a
le solution. I'd be willing to clear
say five or ten a day.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Bod Notbod
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 6:12 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:04 AM, wrote:
>
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:04 AM, wrote:
> You have completely ignored the requirement that I am here *solely*
> referring to items which live, online, behind subscription walls. If
> the item is free, then it does not. So that removes the majority of
> your counter-argument.
I'm honestly not tr
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:46 AM, FT2 wrote:
> Hope that clarifies? :)
Yes, it really truly does. I hadn't thought about in those terms.
Looking at it that way, I don't think I need to be an admin to do my stuff.
As you say, if you're constantly butting up against situations where
not having the
Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:55 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, wrote:
> As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when
> to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the fol
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:31 AM, wrote:
> It's a tiny bit highbrow, so I wouldn't expect really that much of it.
Agreed. The average vandal doesn't look at policy. They simply look at
a page and want to mess with it in some way. Oftentimes it's just
writing their name or swearing. I'm telling you
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> Do you get the sense that wp:en *needs* more admins?
> If not, I'm happy where I am, really.
That's fair, but it's really the wrong question. It's rarely about "does WP
need more admins". The much more appropriate question is, "do you find
you
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:26 AM, wrote:
> I'm not really seeing any solution in your words.
> Would you then change policy to state that if an item is behind a
> subscription wall, then it cannot be cited at all, regardless of
> whether others can access it freely (with an existing subscription,
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> When you get the admin tools, you get a neat little link saying
> "deleted user contributions". There is also something called a block
> button, but mine is buried under six feet or so of dust. I really must
> log out one day to remind myself how
.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Bod Notbod
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:15 AM, wrote:
> At times what I've done is say "would you be
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM, FT2 wrote:
> The issue I'd expect is much more, mis-citing - statements not in the text,
> or mischaracterized, that linger weeks or months because now click-and-check
> isn't operational and very few people will look up "New York Times 19 July
> 2009 P.4B" (howev
se who can use it.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: FT2
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:21 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote:
> The problem of lack of availability has
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:15 AM, wrote:
> At times what I've done is say "would you be willing to quote the exact
> passage with quotation marks?" Sometimes that works if I'm skeptical
> that they really paraphrased it accurately, and if they are willing to
> do that, but I wouldn't remove it jus
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>
>> I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy
>> of this, I think:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
>
> Yes, the intro is. Definitely. Then I thi
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote:
> The problem of lack of availability has been with us since the year
> 3000 BC. We can't solve every problem right away. That we can specify
> a citation stating that *if* you had a way to get the item, you could
> verify it, satisfies our policy requir
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I also looked at the deleted version of the article, and it was a copy
> of this, I think:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James_Sidis
Yes, the intro is. Definitely. Then I think the hoaxer played around
with the other bits, probably ad
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>
>>> Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an
>>> article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk
x27;t there, all we can go by is what been stated. As far as I know
Jodie has not specifically refuted it. I have tried to dig up the
intricate details, but it's been slow going.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Bod Notbod
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 5:07
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
>
>
>
>> I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who
>> was described as "the greatest child genius the world has ever seen".
>>
>> There was a long list of verification
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
>> Just combed back through my last 500 contribs. Can't find it. If an
>> article had been deleted would it disappear from my contribs?
>
> Yes.
>
> 05:24, 30 July 2009 David Eppstein (talk | contribs | block) deleted
> "James Cornelius Leach" (G
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM, wrote:
> I would submit however, that every print publication over the past 100
> years or perhaps even 200, lives in at least one worldcat repository
> (library) somewhere in the world.
OK, thank you. I expect I'll be spending a lot of time on that site:
it migh
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> I found this interesting:
>
> http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/
>
> Basically, en:wp cites the BBC and Guardian more than any other UK
> news outlet. Because they're easy to link to.
>
> Paywall for generic news =
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> I found a new article the other day and it was all about this guy who
> was described as "the greatest child genius the world has ever seen".
>
> There was a long list of verifications although not enough to cover
> most of the points made in
2009/8/8 :
> David that isn't what I stated.
> I said if it lives *exclusively* online. The word exclusive means
> solely, only, alone, uniquely.
> If the item has been printed in some format, it would not be an
> exclusively online item so Part A would not apply to it.
That still smells like
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:44 AM, wrote:
> As far as when to remove citations to subscription web-sites and when
> to leave them intact as convenience links, I use the following rule:
I'm sorry, you've completely and utterly confused me... so let's look:
> Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exc
ssage-
From: David Gerard
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
2009/8/8 :
> Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets
> removed. We should not be requiring or pa
ubject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote:
> That something is not yet available onl
ine, shouldn't be a factor in
> considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of
Bora
> Bora *could* (theoret
I found this interesting:
http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/cited-uk-papers-wikipedia/
Basically, en:wp cites the BBC and Guardian more than any other UK
news outlet. Because they're easy to link to.
Paywall for generic news = sink without trace.
- d.
___
2009/8/8 :
> Part A or 1) *If* the article lives exclusively online, then it gets
> removed. We should not be requiring or pandering for, commercial
> activity, we as verifiers should have a choice in the matter. There
> must always be a "free" alternative of some sort.
Not at all. Quite expen
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM, wrote:
> That something is not yet available online, shouldn't be a factor in
> considering whether or not we should cite it. Even the library of Bora
> Bora *could* (theoretically at least) request a copy of an item for
> you, provided you have the citation and
n citation practice.
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Bod Notbod
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2 wrote:
> The purposes of citations divide rou
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM, FT2 wrote:
> The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for
> people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find
> further information and (sometimes) to check content.
Nicely done, sir.
Yes, as someone who pat
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM,
Surreptitiousness wrote:
> I hadn't heard that. I thought The Observer was owned by the Guardian
> Media Group, and was therefore hitched closely to The Guardian's
> fortunes. I thought the paper in most serious threat of closure was The
> Indy.
Apparently the pe
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:09 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Reuters to Murdoch and AP: "Go ahead and kill yourselves. Idiots.":
>
> http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-in-the-link-economy/
Yes, I'm inclined to believe the link economy works with a caveat
after the next para
n (see
worldcat.org).
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Charles Matthews
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Fri, Aug 7, 2009 2:49 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
David Goodman wrote:
> A much more serious problem is the availability of this
The flip side of the problem is, while in theory all information is
verifiable, most citations are checked with a thoroughness and multiplicity
of eyeballs in direct correlation to ease of access. If information becomes
pay-only for major sources then false information or selective and
misrepresent
David Goodman wrote:
> A much more serious problem is the availability of this material in
> the less-developed world, which includes a great many people who rely
> on the English Wikipedia--many of whom do not have practical access to
> any good library.
Quite. But then the traditional solution
> I have access to a newspaper library through my library card, don't
> other Wikipedians have a similar access, or at least realise such things
> exist? This idea that newspapers will lose utility as a source if they
> go behind pay-walls is a non-starter as far as I can make out, because
> that
Bod Notbod wrote:
> It's an issue. The UK's oldest Sunday newspaper, The Observer, has
> been described as on the verge of collapse these last few days.
>
I hadn't heard that. I thought The Observer was owned by the Guardian
Media Group, and was therefore hitched closely to The Guardian's
for
I have access to a newspaper library through my library card, don't
other Wikipedians have a similar access, or at least realise such things
exist? This idea that newspapers will lose utility as a source if they
go behind pay-walls is a non-starter as far as I can make out, because
that would
Just to address a point about collecting old newspapers (not new ones)
and making those old yellowed decayed faded and spotted newspapers
available online.
Firstly, there is already a company which does this. That is, makes
old newspapers available for viewing online. I use it all the time.
2009/8/7 Bod Notbod :
> Savvy media types have made the point that the payment system will
> have to be real slick to succeed. It will have to be a one click
> payment after registration. Sounds feasible to me. I think I'd be OK
> lobbing in 10p (16c) for certain things. Another commentator said i
ce
> to be aware.
>
> -kc-
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bod Notbod"
> To: ; "English Wikipedia"
>
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
>
>>
>> Looks lik
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I don't think that Murdoch's proposal is viable in the long run. Who
> will be wanting to pay for so much ephemeral material. What would it
> say of readers who bind themselves to one site because that is all they
> can afford only one subsc
Gwern Branwen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
>> More broadly, there's a good side and a bad side to this. The bad
>> side, yes, a lot of our existing references will break, and it'll be a
>> bit harder to write good, robustly cited, articles in the future. On
>> the plu
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the
>> ceiling.
> You've tested this? :-)
>
> - --
> Cary Bass
> Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
I have, and God bless people that save old newspa
Carcharoth wrote:
> Some stuff in newspapers is really horribly
> unreliable. Books as well. But the best books are nearly always better
> than newspapers. Even if a book is written based in part on newspaper
> reports, it should go beyond that and establish firmer reliability and
> more research i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> # It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the
> ceiling.
You've tested this? :-)
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Al Tally wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
>
>> I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's
>> valid but I'll throw it out there.
>>
>> Where a book (possibly out of print) is cited we should be giving
>> details of Title, Author, ISBN and pos
y little bit helps, yes?
>
> I am not speaking of writing policy there, mind you, merely a little
> notice
> to be aware.
>
> -kc-
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bod Notbod"
> To: ; "English Wikipedia"
>
> Sent: Friday, August 07,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> Thing is, I expect most people don't keep newspapers, but people do have
> plenty of books, easily accessible in libraries and in their homes (and easy
> to buy). I don't know the case for other people, but in my "local" library
> old local newsp
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael west wrote:
>
> > We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of
> > print. I don't see the problem.
>
> I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's
> val
you, merely a little notice
to be aware.
-kc-
- Original Message -
From: "Bod Notbod"
To: ; "English Wikipedia"
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Online Newspapers Considering Subscription Model
>
> Looks like you're right.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
>>> Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now",
>>> which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now",
>>> which isn't...
>>>
>>
>> ...unless it's a BLP, right?
>>
>>
> You say that why? There isn't a diffe
Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>
>
>> Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now",
>> which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now",
>> which isn't...
>>
>
> ...unless it's a BLP, right?
>
>
You say th
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Charles
Matthews wrote:
> Note the tension between "you can edit this page right now",
> which is part of the credo, and "you can verify this fact right now",
> which isn't...
...unless it's a BLP, right?
___
WikiEN-l m
Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael west wrote:
>
>
>> We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of
>> print. I don't see the problem.
>>
>
> I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's
> valid but I'll throw it out
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
More broadly, there's a good side and a bad side to this. The bad
side, yes, a lot of our existing references will break, and it'll be a
bit harder to write good, robustly cited, articles in the future. On
the plus side, it might help wean us off
2009/8/7 Bod Notbod :
> I'm wondering if, if newspaper content goes behind a pay wall, we
> would really have to be giving citation information that pertains to
> the actual printed copy of the article, ie, Newspaper, Print Date and
> Page Number?
We should really be giving publication date (whic
> This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television
> news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free
> online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in
> the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online
> newspape
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 10:40 AM, michael west wrote:
> We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of
> print. I don't see the problem.
I take your point. Although a difference strikes me. I'm not sure it's
valid but I'll throw it out there.
Where a book (possibly out of pr
We cite books which aren't available online and in some cases out of
print. I don't see the problem.
On 07/08/2009, Bod Notbod wrote:
> This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television
> news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free
> online newspaper
This is still up in the air but it has been mentioned on UK television
news in various contexts recently: because the business model of free
online newspapers funded by advertising doesn't seem to be brining in
the bucks, there is much discussion in the media as to whether online
newspapers will st
92 matches
Mail list logo
