JSTOR, as was said by multiple individuals above, is a perfect candidate to approach. They're non-profit, they have some fulltext, and they could help greatly with out history articles. I have access, and, aside from my semi-permanent habit of navel-gazing, JSTOR was used in some way or another in partically ever article I've substantially edited in the last two years. I imagine my experiences are pretty typical. Also, perhaps controversially, it seems to me humanities databases are a tiny bit more "within the scope of wikipedia" than the lastest scientific journals. I'd like to see both, but most of the people who need the absolutely lastest, up-to-date word on protein kinases probably have access to the relevant papers already. But humanities change more slowly-- an article on the causes of the french revolution may gradully evolve due to new discoveries-- but not nearly as fast a cutting-edge science article would. There's also a lower field to entry for history/humanities: anyone who is literate can read an article on the Taiping Rebellion-- but a smaller population has the prereqs to immediately read an article about eigenvectors. That's not to say the latest science journals wouldn't be useful. After all, the true goal here is access for EVERYONE to EVERYTHING. But, as others have said, JSTOR definitely looks like the low-hanging fruit that might yield the most bang for a foundation's buck. On 12/21/08, Nick <heligolandwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: If it were a big concern, ring fence your donation? FT2

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Jon &lt;scream(a)datascreamer.com&gt; wrote: There's this cool thing I heard of once, called the "free dictionary". ;-) <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ring_fence> -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 --- Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.