On 12/27/08, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could be to make better use of the systems we've already developed on our own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange
I think there are a lot of priorities for WMF funds that rank higher than buying institutional access to sources.
You speak wisdom. This is the "real" objection to the idea of a WMF subscription to JSTOR. Real as in, very persuasive and if there's a reason why it won't happen, you hit the nail on the head.
Right now, I think for almost all of us in this thread, we have no idea what the WMF bankbook looks like, and we also have no clue what JSTOR's price would look like. So, those are two pretty huge unknowns in the equation.
If JSTOR's price is a sufficiently small fraction of the WMF budget, go for it. If JSTOR's price would be a substantial chunk of the budget, forget it. --
Although, if it turns out to be prohibitively expensive, the foundation, it's pr-peeps, and jimbo could still use the JSTOR access as a way to drum up funds. Any time someone complains about Wikipedia's accuracy, we could turn that around and say:
"Hey, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain, but if you think Wikipedia isn't up to snuff compared with other publications, that's because other publications have funds and we don't. Rather than complain that our quality is lacking, help us fix it by helping us get access to JSTOR and places like it." A glorified version of [[WP:SOFIXIT]].
Just anecdotally, I've met lots of people in academia who have seen cases where arguments like that are miraculously transformed into sudden funding opportunities-- whenever someone criticizes you, tell them what you need to do the job better, and ask them for help.
Alec