Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

WSJ on Wikipedia

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


william at scissor

Nov 23, 2009, 8:57 AM

Post #1 of 39 (9573 views)
Permalink
WSJ on Wikipedia

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 [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


altallym at googlemail

Nov 23, 2009, 9:18 AM

Post #2 of 39 (9358 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri <william [at] scissor> wrote:

> 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
>

I'm able to view it without being subscribed.

--Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


gerard.meijssen at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 9:20 AM

Post #3 of 39 (9373 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

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 <william [at] scissor>

> 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 [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


newyorkbrad at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 9:41 AM

Post #4 of 39 (9896 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

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 <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail
> 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 <william [at] scissor>
>
> > 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 [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 9:41 AM

Post #5 of 39 (9374 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> 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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


altallym at googlemail

Nov 23, 2009, 9:44 AM

Post #6 of 39 (9364 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> 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
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


gerard.meijssen at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 9:55 AM

Post #7 of 39 (9743 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

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) <newyorkbrad [at] gmail>

> 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 <
> gerard.meijssen [at] gmail
> > 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 <william [at] scissor>
> >
> > > 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 [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


dgoodmanny at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 10:07 AM

Post #8 of 39 (9376 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

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
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> 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) <newyorkbrad [at] gmail>
>
>> 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 <
>> gerard.meijssen [at] gmail
>> > 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 <william [at] scissor>
>> >
>> > > 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 [at] lists
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l [at] lists
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


nawrich at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 10:24 AM

Post #9 of 39 (9356 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> 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
>


The request was to summarize the main points. That's certainly legal.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


william at scissor

Nov 23, 2009, 10:52 AM

Post #10 of 39 (9379 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

altally wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri <william [at] scissor> wrote
>> 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
>>
>
> I'm able to view it without being subscribed.
>


Odd. I still can't see it at that link, but it turns out if I click
through from Google, I can see the text:

http://www.google.com/#q=wsj+"Wikipedia.org+is+the+fifth"

Overall, it seems like a pretty solid article. Much more nuanced and
thoughtful than I was expecting from the video.


William


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


gerard.meijssen at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 11:04 AM

Post #11 of 39 (9358 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

Hoi,
I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New
Zealand .... libraries ... also books are available for years the copy of
the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the
WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
Thanks.
GerardM

2009/11/23 David Goodman <dgoodmanny [at] gmail>

> 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
> <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> 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) <newyorkbrad [at] gmail>
> >
> >> 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 <
> >> gerard.meijssen [at] gmail
> >> > 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 <william [at] scissor>
> >> >
> >> > > 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 [at] lists
> >> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> > >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l [at] lists
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l [at] lists
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


newyorkbrad at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 11:26 AM

Post #12 of 39 (9364 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the
article. This is a digression.

Newyorkbrad

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen [at] gmail>wrote:

> Hoi,
> I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New
> Zealand .... libraries ... also books are available for years the copy of
> the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the
> WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
> Thanks.
> GerardM
>
> 2009/11/23 David Goodman <dgoodmanny [at] gmail>
>
> > 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
> > <gerard.meijssen [at] gmail> 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) <newyorkbrad [at] gmail>
> > >
> > >> 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 <
> > >> gerard.meijssen [at] gmail
> > >> > 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 <william [at] scissor>
> > >> >
> > >> > > 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 [at] lists
> > >> > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >> > >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > foundation-l mailing list
> > >> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > >> > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> foundation-l mailing list
> > >> foundation-l [at] lists
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


wikipedia at verizon

Nov 23, 2009, 11:30 AM

Post #13 of 39 (9369 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> books are available for years the copy of
> the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the
> WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
>
I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street
Journal).

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


steven.walling at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 11:38 AM

Post #14 of 39 (9674 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a
cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a quantitative
analysis <http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis> of Wikipedia in
several languages.

I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the
thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this
must be new research.

Steven

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon>wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > books are available for years the copy of
> > the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of
> the
> > WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
> >
> I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
> just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
> in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
> encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
> library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
> on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
> editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street
> Journal).
>
> --Michael Snow
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


saintonge at telus

Nov 23, 2009, 12:16 PM

Post #15 of 39 (9359 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

altally wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Gerard Meijssen 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.
>>>
>> 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
> 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.

I would be loath to muddle verifiability with the presence of a
pay-wall. They are two different issues.

To whatever extent WSJ is a verifiable source it will remain so
irrespective of its being freely available.

With so many sources available I would have no reason to to favour them
with a subscription. Subscribing would be tantamount to saying that
WSJ's opinion pieces are that much more valuable than other sources.
The underlying information remains uncopyrightable. It's up to the free
market to decide whether a paid subscription is worth it. They have a
supply, but the demand may not be sufficient.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


fordmadoxfraud at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 12:28 PM

Post #16 of 39 (9369 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs
deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors,
and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but
yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing
contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days,
functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single
digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same
people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia.
Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is
undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs
the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good
content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is
a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and
vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.

I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is
hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is
certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of
older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project
and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as
much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to
replenish our ranks.

FMF


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>wrote:

> So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a
> cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a
> quantitative
> analysis <http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis> of Wikipedia in
> several languages.
>
> I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the
> thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this
> must be new research.
>
> Steven
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon
> >wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > books are available for years the copy of
> > > the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of
> > the
> > > WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
> > >
> > I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
> > just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
> > in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
> > encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
> > library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
> > on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
> > editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street
> > Journal).
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


saintonge at telus

Nov 23, 2009, 12:29 PM

Post #17 of 39 (9352 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the
> article. This is a digression.
>
>
This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?"

In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ
article, or is it about the availability and verifiability of WSJ
material as raised in Gerard's originating post for this thread?

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


innocentkiller at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 12:54 PM

Post #18 of 39 (9677 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge [at] telus> wrote:
> Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
>> If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the
>> article.  This is a digression.
>>
>>
> This seems to beg the question: "What do we mean by 'on topic'?"
>
> In the present circumstances, is it about the actual content of the WSJ
> article, or is it about the availability and verifiability of WSJ
> material as raised in Gerard's originating post for this thread?
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The topic is about the WSJ's writings about Wikipedian
participation. That is all.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


saintonge at telus

Nov 23, 2009, 1:40 PM

Post #19 of 39 (9356 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

Michael Snow wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> books are available for years the copy of
>> the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of the
>> WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
>>
> I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
> just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
> in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
> encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
> library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
> on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
> editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street
> Journal).
>
Of course you happen to live in the state that has the highest
proportion of library use in the US! What has the state done right to
encourage your expressed attitude?

It may at first seem that you and Gerard are speaking at cross
purposes. There are some serious epistemological questions that lie at
the root of this discussion. It's not just about the WSJ (which is a
convenient example for this discussion), but about the entire question
of how we store and retrieve knowledge. How we pay for its production
is only one issue among many.

The stack of paper 1-centimeter-thick WSJs accumulated over 120 years at
five issues per week would be 300 metres high, (tall enough to be marked
on a map as a hazard to aviation) with no guarantee that the oldest
copies at the bottom of the stack would not have been so deteriorated by
internal acids as to be unusable. With the advent on on-line publication
we have no way of judging the stability of its much larger content, or
of being assured that it has not been edited to suit updated policy.
Maintaining an edit log is not a standard operating procedure for most
sites.

Perhaps we do need to become more familiar with libraries, but perhaps
too librarians need to be more pro-active in communicating the changing
nature of their resource to the public.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


andrew.lih at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 1:49 PM

Post #20 of 39 (9347 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is
> hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is
> certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of
> older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project
> and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as
> much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to
> replenish our ranks.

At Wikimania 2009 it was noted there were declines across different
language editions, which started happening at the same time. This
suggest that it's not simply the "completeness" of a particular
edition at play here, as the development cycle of each different
language edition should be fairly distinct. Rather, the sharp declines
across languages indicates it could be a platform feature (ie.
software, policy, et al) or that there is an interdependency across
the language groups or some other outlying variable.

The session at Wikimania about this:
http://wikimania2009.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:221

I'll be doing a talk at SXSW 2010 about this next year, and I welcome
any/all theories and what areas of research to pursue.
http://bit.ly/8Hh52


-Andrew Lih

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


susanpgardner at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 1:54 PM

Post #21 of 39 (9730 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

I agree with you, David.

The usability work is a necessary precondition to bringing in new editors. It's essential for us to remove obvious, simple usability barriers that are impeding people who want to help.

But it's not the whole story, and I suspect that social barriers to participation will in the end prove much more difficult to overcome, compared with technical barriers.

Basically, there are a lot of people who would like to contribute to Wikipedia, but who find us impenetrable.

We know that new people's edits are increasingly reverted. Sometimes the reversions come without explanation; other times, they are explained curtly, unkindly, or using language (eg in templates) that newcomers don't understand. The net effect is that new people end up discouraged, and they don't stay.

In order to bring in and retain new editors, we need to make it possible for people to edit productively, without needing to develop deep expertise in our policies and practices. Frank Schulenburg's "bookshelf" project will create a series of orientation materials for new people: that will help some. But there is lots of other work that needs to happen, in my opinion: we need to encourage friendliness, we need to make the editing experience more supportive and enjoyable for everyone (not just new people), and we need to simplify policies and practices to make it easier for new people to engage easily and usefully.

People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.

Thanks,
Sue

-----Original Message-----
From: David Moran <fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:28:24
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l [at] lists>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WSJ on Wikipedia

Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs
deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of editors,
and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but
yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing
contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days,
functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single
digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same
people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia.
Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is
undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs
the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good
content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which is
a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and
vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.

I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is
hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is
certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency of
older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project
and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as
much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to
replenish our ranks.

FMF


On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>wrote:

> So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did a
> cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a
> quantitative
> analysis <http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis> of Wikipedia in
> several languages.
>
> I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the
> thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so this
> must be new research.
>
> Steven
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon
> >wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > books are available for years the copy of
> > > the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy of
> > the
> > > WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library ??
> > >
> > I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
> > just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
> > in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
> > encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
> > library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
> > on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
> > editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall Street
> > Journal).
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


andrew.lih at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 1:57 PM

Post #22 of 39 (9364 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Sue Gardner <susanpgardner [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.
>

FYI, the Strategy Wiki area Sue was talking about:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


cunctator at gmail

Nov 23, 2009, 2:05 PM

Post #23 of 39 (9349 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage
multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a "good" article -- without
a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has
fallen drastically.

Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration, deletionism, hierarchy,
protection, bureaucratization -- guarantee the decline of the Wikipedia
community, if not the website itself.

But so it goes.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:28 PM, David Moran <fordmadoxfraud [at] gmail>wrote:

> Getting back to the content of the article: I get that inclusionism vs
> deletionism is a tired way to talk about divisions between camps of
> editors,
> and that everyone rolls their eyes when you start talking about it, but
> yeah, it's real. Every single person I know who was once a producing
> contributor but who has now left the project (including me these days,
> functionally--my monthly edit numbers have gone from quadruple to single
> digits) did so because of having the same kind of arguments with the same
> people over and over again about what deserved to be in the encyclopedia.
> Which is anecdotal and statistically insignificant, I know. But it is
> undeniable that Wikipedia, as a system, encourages (by its relative ease vs
> the alternatives) the removal of content, rather than the creation of good
> content, or the polishing of bad or mediocre content, the latter of which
> is
> a dreary chore. To an extent, the destruction of content is as healthy and
> vitally necessary a part of the Wikipedia ecosystem as its reverse.
>
> I think a lot of attention is paid to the way the technical interface is
> hostile to newbies, and making that more user-friendly and democratic is
> certainly a concern that needs to be addressed. But I think the tendency
> of
> older users, or certain editorially minded users, to squat on the project
> and bludgeon newer users with policy pages rolled up into sticks is just as
> much if not more responsible for driving away the new users we need to
> replenish our ranks.
>
> FMF
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail
> >wrote:
>
> > So the content of the WSJ article may be behind a paywall, but I just did
> a
> > cursory search of the researcher's 2009 Ph.D. thesis which was a
> > quantitative
> > analysis <http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/phd-thesis> of Wikipedia
> in
> > several languages.
> >
> > I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any conclusions in the
> > thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the Journal, so
> this
> > must be new research.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] verizon
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > > > books are available for years the copy of
> > > > the day may be available in a library, but how about last years copy
> of
> > > the
> > > > WSJ ? Do you really think the WSJ can be found in every USA library
> ??
> > > >
> > > I don't know about "every" library, but libraries are about more than
> > > just books, and librarians are not unaware of the wonders of databases
> > > in our modern digital age. For those of us that use libraries, I
> > > encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the collections your
> > > library may be able to provide access to online. I've certainly relied
> > > on my library privileges for such sources many times in the course of
> > > editing Wikipedia, particularly news archives (including the Wall
> Street
> > > Journal).
> > >
> > > --Michael Snow
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l [at] lists
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


pbeaudette at wikimedia

Nov 23, 2009, 2:06 PM

Post #24 of 39 (9358 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:

>
> People who want to help do some of this work should engage on the
> strategy wiki: there's a task force focused on community health that
> will be looking at these issues. I can't post the URL (I'm on my
> Blackberry and between meetings) -- but if nobody posts it within
> the next few hours, I'll do it once I'm back at my laptop.


The URL is: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Community_Health

____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Facilitator, Strategy Project
Wikimedia Foundation

philippe [at] wikimedia

mobile: 918 200-WIKI (9454)

Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


glimmer_phoenix at yahoo

Nov 23, 2009, 5:31 PM

Post #25 of 39 (9348 views)
Permalink
Re: WSJ on Wikipedia [In reply to]

--- El lun, 23/11/09, Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail> escribi:

> De: Steven Walling <steven.walling [at] gmail>
>
> I didn't see any of the graphs from the piece or any
> conclusions in the
> thesis which are equivalent to the statements made in the
> Journal, so this
> must be new research.
>

Hi, Steven.

I'm Felipe Ortega the author of the numbers and graphs you're mentioning.

Yes, these are recent updated results of our long-time research line about the Wikipedia community. They were firstly presented at WikiSym 2009, and before that on a coference in the Web Science Lecture Series, at Georgia Tech (both on last October).

As always, I just want to state that, even though the numbers doesn't seem really good for the sustainability of the project in the long term, I struggle daily to fight against fatalist claims or headlines speculating about the end of the project.

Wikipedia just entered a new phase. Our responsibility (as long-time Wikipedia researchers) is to find out the causes (not necessarily negative, please read a PDF summarizing a recent electronic interview for the Strategy plan, at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interviews) and prevent any possible problems as much in advance as possible.

As usual, I'm at your disposal for any comments/clarifications.

Best,
Felipe.

> Steven





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Wikipedia foundation RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.