Talk:for all intrinsic purposes

RFV discussion: April–June 2022

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

for all intrinsic purposes

AFAICT, none of the cites of Citations:for all intrinsic purposes are from durably archived sources and at least one has already disappeared. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The ones that were listed as "Google groups" are actually Usenet cites. As far as I can tell, the first three all remain available. This, that and the other (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Great. How can we be sure that they are Usenet groups? DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A few reasons: (a) the alt. and rec. hierarchies are Usenet hierarchies; (b) Google Groups didn't come into existence until 2001 and the first three posts predate it; (c) the groups all can be found in the Usenet Info Center: [1] for example. This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That leaves us with 4 potentially good cites, only one after 2001. I'll have to make Usenet Info Center a favorite on my browser. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I examined the "cites" a little further. Four of the six cites that were not durably archived were not available to me on clicking the links provided. One of the five Usenet cites was blocked because of spam by someone with the power to do so, namely Google. I could not contact the owners of the group or join the group through Google groups. Also the failure to provide message id makes verifying the claimed usenet cites tedious and probably makes verification using a gateway/archive other than Google impractical. All of this link rot occurred since August 2, 2007, ie, in less than 15 years. I think this demonstrates empirically why we need durably archived media for citations. DCDuring (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A very interesting experiment. How many of the non-durably-archived cites are available in the Wayback Machine? That would be an interesting test of that service's value for durable archiving, should we have to vote on it one day. This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I never adequately appreciated the value of message-id, which was part of {{quote-usenet}} (2010-2016) and is part of {{quote-newsgroup}} (as "id"). It offers freedom from what amounts for our purposes to book-burning by Google.

As long as it is funded the Wayback Machine seems adequate. A WMF-operated or -funded archive of citations with some extra context seems likely to be better. DCDuring (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added non-Usenet citations that might help with this entry. I am still not entirely familiar with {{quote-book}}, so please forgive any resulting errors in formatting or missing information. If needed, there are a few additional results from texts archived in the Wayback Machine. Amadeusine (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)