On 8/12/12 1:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 August 2012 00:07, Ocaasi Ocaasi <wikioca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is not just a problem with paywalled sources, but *any* source which is
not available free *and* online. Not all of the sources that have been donated
are solely pay-for-access; some of them, for example, you would just need a
good university library reference section to access. Yet I don't know if the
same concerns would be raised about editors using library reference desks, any
printed content for that matter. Much print content is just as difficult for
readers to verify, whether it is available somewhere in the brick-and-mortar
world free, or not.
I think it's a net win for our mission because it gets a summary of
the knowledge itself into the encyclopedia.
I would consider it an extremely bad idea for print sources to be
deprecated. Wikipedia already has enough of a problem with history
having apparently started in 1995.
This is my general view as well. While I, like everyone else, am annoyed
at hitting journal paywalls, in practical effect they aren't really any
worse than academic-press books. You can't get them online, but have to
head in person to a university library to request a copy. I don't think
the state of the open-access literature is yet such that we can produce
a good encyclopedia in many areas if we cite *only* open-access, online
sources, and exclude everything that is available only in print. But if
we permit things that can be gotten only in print, then closed-access
journals are usually no worse than academic-press books: both can be had
free at a university library, but probably not easily from Amazon or
your local non-university library.
I do try to prioritize in rough order of accessibility *if* all else is
equal. Best is available online, second-best is widely available in
print (low-priced book available in regular libraries), third-best is
available in most university libraries, and last-best is obscure stuff
available only in specialist archives. So most closed-access journals
fall into category #3, which is sub-optimal but often needed.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
