Hi Mitar, You know I think it's sad too that we have to go around asking for donations and selling Wikipedia's value as a portal to publishers. On the other hand, we have 500 million monthly readers and when they come to Wikipedia they will see the content we have summarized from sources. The only question is whether that content is from full-text-available-online sources *only*, or from all of the best sources regardless of their access status. At the end of my day, I have to serve our editors and readers as best I can and that means giving them as much access to the best research as possible today. You may think this is a devil's bargain, but I have to admit that I'm a pragmatist and I'd rather have our editors summarize paywalled content for our readers than for that content to not be represented on Wikipedia at all, even if readers may hit a paywall when they click-through. It's long been Wikipedia's policy (at least English Wikipedia) that accessibility is not a deciding factor when it comes to what is a reliable source. That applies to out of print manuscripts as well as to embargoed journals--we use the best sources now because we have an encyclopedia to write. If we aim to change that, it requires a very deep discussion about how we prioritize and strategize our mission. I do whatever I can to support OA, to tweet about open access button efforts, to promote WikiProject Resource Exchange, to support the OA signalling project, to engage with initiatives like the Open Access reader, and to discuss the broader mission of sharing knowledge with reference experts and journals. The tides are changing and I see it daily as I speak with librarians and journal publishers. In other words, the efforts of The Wikipedia Library advance our mission and are indeed *complementary* to the radical vision of open access that I wholeheartedly support. So, I hope you take this as my saying, "I agree completely" and also "So what, we have an encyclopedia to write!" Happy to continue discussing this. Best, Jake (Ocaasi) On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Mitar &lt;mmitar(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia: Ocaasi <http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi> Facebook: Jake Orlowitz <http://www.facebook.com/jorlowitz> Twitter: JakeOrlowitz <https://twitter.com/JakeOrlowitz> LinkedIn: Jake Orlowitz <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=197604531> Email: jorlowitz(a)yahoo.com Skype: jorlowitz Cell: (484) 684-2104 Home: (484) 380-3940

Folks, Even though I know most of cringe when we find a source that is behind a paywall, I think that we should treat it as marginally better than a offline source. For those, Wikipedia:Offline sources <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources> states "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources> states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. *Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources."* (Source emphasis, not mine) This is what I do for such citations. 1. I add "{{closed access}} " (including that space) before the citation template. 2. I set the parameter |subscription=yes 3. If there is an OCLC # available, I set the parameter |oclc= so that a reader can go find the print source in a library. 4. If it is appropriate to include the parameter |issn= along with or instead of the |oclc= parameter, then I use that. For some universities, colleges, & libraries, access to some online database will be free to their students / faculty / staff / patrons, so there definitely is a value to including to URL or DOI for those cases. Yours, Peaceray -- User:Peaceray On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Mitar &lt;mmitar(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: