Wiktionary talk:Votes/2024-02/End date for Usenet's durably archived status

I'm particularly interested to hear from anyone who supports the Usenet policy change but objects to one of the other changes proposed in the vote. I believe these changes should be fairly uncontroversial, as they are all reflective of longstanding practice, but I'm still keen to hear if anyone holds conflicting views. This, that and the other (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other while we're messing with CFI I suggest you add a point mandating (or at least encouraging) archiveurls when quoting works published online. I can't imagine that anyone would be opposed to this given how big a problem link rot is. And even then, you would only be enforcing this in RFV discussions. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, definitely a good idea. I'm not sure if I really want to add any more new material though. I already feel like I'm pushing the boundaries with the statement about durably archived sources at RFV! I'll think about it. This, that and the other (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say yes. (As for me, I always add the archive URL when I add something from Twitter or Reddit.) CitationsFreak (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak @Ioaxxere check the vote now. This, that and the other (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other thank you, I fully support this change. We should change the term "durably archived" at some point since it really just means "published" or "notable". Any website saved on the Wayback Machine is clearly "durably archived" in the literal sense but clearly goes against the spirit of the rule. Ioaxxere (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to strike out the ISBN part, since it's an encouragement and not a mandate. But that's not a deal-breaker for me. Megathonic (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the ISBN is nice to have and it seems odd to remove the encouragement to include it. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I also agree: we should keep the exhortation to add ISBNs. If anything, we should add exhortations to add DOIs, LCCNs, etc. where possible and not too onerous. 0DF (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 for me too. @This, that and the other AG202 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I restored the sentence about ISBNs. As an alternative, we could once again remove that sentence, and add a new sentence at the end of the "Durably archived" section to the effect of:

When citing a quotation, editors are strongly encouraged to provide a bibliographic identifier, such as the ISBN for a book, the DOI for an academic journal article, or the message ID for a Usenet post.

This, that and the other (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: I would prefer that new wording. You may want to link ISBN and DOI for anyone unfamiliar with those initialisms, however. 0DF (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"Print media such as books and magazines are a durably archived source of attestation,"

"Print media such as books and magazines are a durably archived source of attestation," But is it true? It's definitely an arrogant assertion, no question about that. Similar to the arrogantly and obnoxiously presentist sentence "When citing a quotation from a book, please include the ISBN." It implies that books without ISBN are lesser-than. Library science is open minded, not narrow minded. Long term, bona fide verification of the "durably" "archived" status of any piece of work is actually needed, and holding a vote to pretend anything in a certain class is automatically durably archived undercuts the whole premise. I've seen books with ISBNs that don't have OCLC numbers. Are they bona fide durably archived? There are transgender magazines from the 1970s with no ISBN or ISSN. We're talking about actually durably archived stuff, not 差不多 durably archived. Regarding ISBNs, I can only say this: #NotAllBooks --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

When it comes to the ability to locate a copy when needed, books without ISBN probably are lesser-than. Equinox ◑ 12:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but the idea that all non-mainstream publications of today as well as all books before 1970 are "lesser-than" when compared to the ISBN books seems like a source of bias. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The policy does not say that they are "lesser-than". That's your claim. You have not proven it. Equinox ◑ 17:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

What Equinox says; as I used to read it, it is basically a misplaced entry formatting recommendation. The sentence should be removed, and this would not have any regulatory effect. I have already expanded upon my understanding how durability is an institutional guarantee. Fay Freak (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct. The sentence has no actual regulatory effect. So if it has no regulatory effect, does it have any other kinds of effects? Speculation: I would say that its primary function is to have a chilling effect on non-ISBN books, because it implies that a book without an ISBN is "lesser-than"- if you don't include an ISBN, you're ignoring a strong suggestion from the WT:ATTEST page. So I object. Check out this work by Jerome Ch'en [1]. There is no ISBN. Now of course I'm not saying that this sentence is banning books that don't have ISBNs. This sentence is just implying that if you don't have an ISBN with a cite, you're not up to snuff. That's dastardly, because ISBN is important but is not the be-all-end-all of "durably archived" status. The implication that I'm seeing is probably not intentional. It is well meaning, no doubt. But OCLC numbers or LCCN or others are perfectly reasonable avenues to demonstrate "durably archived" status, to my mind. One might write the following: "When citing a quotation from a book, where available, please include the ISBN or other book identification numbers." This wording helps resolve the haughty presentism of the sentence as it stands, to my mind. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Including the ISBN, when it exists, helps with tracking down the exact version used in the citation, which is why the recommendation is there. Perhaps it could be rephrased, but I don't see a reason to strike it completely. Megathonic (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that it is our well-established, long-standing practice to treat print media as privileged. The proposal in this vote does not actually change anything (other than the Usenet cutoff date). It simply makes it easier for an outsider or newcomer to understand our practices.

As for the statement about ISBNs, it's clear from the discussions here that there is a range of opinions on this topic. Since it's tangential to the point of the vote, I am inclined to leave this statement alone for now and discuss further at BP to come up with a potential second vote. This, that and the other (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the wording "if possible" or similar, as added here: [2]. To me, it takes the edge off the statement- it feels humble. "Now, yes, please include ISBN if possible, but of course know and remember that human history and publication continues before the year 1970, so you may not have an ISBN to give us." And so the effect that the sentence has to bias Wiktionary toward modern works in citations is thereby curtailed, and by no means is the originally intended effect to promote the ability to verify a work's archived status diminished. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Can confirm they have pulled the plug

Earlier in the week I searched Google Groups for "Biden" and there were Usenet messages from the past few hours in the results. Today I tried the same thing and the newest Usenet messages on the results were from 22 Feb. This, that and the other (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: As there are messages from 22 February, is the date supposed to be indicated as 21 February? J3133 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That is probably a timezone issue, noting that I am on the east coast of Australia and Google is based in the west coast of the US, with almost an entire day's time difference. This, that and the other (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)