Wikipedia talk:Open Access (archived proposal)

Introduction

I'm giving Mindspillage a hand in drafting this policy. Just wanted to say hi, and a few words by way of explanation.

I'm a (mostly-inactive) Wikipedian and (despite said inactivity) a proud supporter and frequent user of Wikipedia. I'm also a proud supporter of open access research. I see shared values between Wikipedia and OA, and benefits to both resulting from their confluence. Mindspillage and I had previously discussed possibilities for cooperation and mutual benefit, and more recently identified this document as one that would be of value to both the Wikipedia and the OA communities.

Needless to say, feedback is welcome; I'm sure this document will be strengthened by the participation of Wikipedians. I also intend to call attention to this document in OA circles, in the hopes of getting some feedback from them.

In particular, I welcome links to pre-existing work or commentary on this or related subjects, so we can benefit from the earlier literature and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. I also especially encourage translations and adaptations of this document to other Wikipedias, once it is completed.

In the interests of disclosure (and as a disclaimer), I am a board member of FreeCulture.org and a current intern at SPARC, both of which take interest in open access, though my opinions expressed here do not reflect the position of either organization, but only my own. --Gavin Baker 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal under active development

At this time, this proposal is under active development (and is therefore not actively seeking feedback). It has been tagged with {{proposed}}, so it will be included in Category:Wikipedia proposals.

When a fuller draft has been arrived at, it will be posted at some combination of WP:RFC, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), in addition to mailing lists, IRC, and maybe some other places, including potentially Talk:Open access.

Of course, you are welcome to comment here and/or to contribute to developing the proposed guideline, anyway. --Gavin Baker 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline: Prefer open access sources

I see two halves to this guideline: One is a descriptive how-to guide for Wikipedians and open access authors, journals, and archivists. The other is a prescriptive guideline recommending that Wikipedians do something. I understand the prescriptive guideline might be more objectionable (or at least raise more questions) than a simple explanation of open access literature and how to use it. My opinion is that the descriptive part by itself would be valuable and should stand, even if the prescription doesn't; but I think the prescriptive part is also desirable. --Gavin Baker 05:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that we don't do prescriptive guidelines. Also, rather than putting this on its own page, the ideas here would be way more effective as part of the already existent MOS pages on citation. >Radiant< 11:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. So long as an article provides the relevant support, it should always be given in preference (if alongside is not possible) to an open access article. Verifiability isn't an option if people are expected to pay in excess of $20 to view a single article. I think this proposal goes hand-in-hand with Wikipedia's ultimate objective of providing information for free. --Seans Potato Business 20:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]