The below was a reply to "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:
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." from will johnson David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:38 PM, David Goodman<dgoodma...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you are actually doing this, I shall have to check your > contributions and revert every such removal. They are not convenience > links, as they are when there is a print version only. They are > perfectly good links, and meet policy--almost always, except in the > case of really esoteric sources, there are hundreds if not thousands > of Wikipedians who can check any one of them. > > We are talking about references, not external links.--removing > external links in such circumstances in another matter entirely, and > it is necessary to do that. > There does not have to be a free alternative to references, or we will > let commercial interests destroy the encyclopedia. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, <wjhon...@aol.com> 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: >> >> 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. >> >> Part Deux) *If* there is a hard-copy version of the article, and your >> citation to the online version is verbose enough that a normally >> intelligent person could locate the item in a library, then it can stay. >> >> Part Final Bit) *If* your citation to the online article, is so limited >> in content that no one could find the article except by following your >> link.. then it gets removed. >> >> I am 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 <bodnot...@gmail.com> >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >> 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<ft2.w...@gmail.com> 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 patrols Recent Changes using Huggle [[WP:HUGGLE]] >> I come across "referenced" edits that turn out, when you click the >> attached link, not to tally with the statement at all. For example, a >> recent one I saw I knew looked funny from the outset in that the >> statement was quite specific but the citation was to the too general >> sounding www.f1.com (the front page of the Grand Prix website). I >> searched to see if I could drill down and confirm and replace the >> citation but failed. >> >> I will be in a world of frustration and hurt if I am confronted with >> "please subscribe for $5 to access this article". I wouldn't *remove* >> the citation because, as a previous poster indicated, my failure to >> access is not cause to disregard "good faith". >> >>> Accordingly if news did become pay-only WMF may obtain some kind of >>> subscription to major sources, accessible to a wide but well defined >> subset >>> of editors (users with > 500 edits? users agreed by a community >> process to >>> be suitable?). >> >> That's an interesting idea. Could work. I have a feeling they might >> ask us to sacrifice Wikinews and stop covering current events as their >> price, though. I would if I were them. Wikinews is not only direct >> competition but it does (and don't hate me for this) leech off all >> their sources. I see no good reason why they should support their >> potential competition, no matter how tiddly Wikinews is in terms of >> online news. Wikinews might have to be the sacrificial goat. We may >> have to say goodbye to great articles like Hurricane Katrina and say >> that we'll create articles that refer to things 12 months gone. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l