Forwarded as requested:
From: Raymond Leonard raymond.f.leonard.jr@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]" glam@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Open Access discussions openaccess@lists.wikimedia.org, "Wikimedia & Libraries" Libraries@lists.wikimedia.org, wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, wikipedia-library@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 16:08:27 -0800 Subject: Re: [GLAM] [OpenAccess] New Wikipedia Library Signups: Free Research Accounts! 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 states "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline 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.
I add "{{closed access}} " (including that space) before the citation template. I set the parameter |subscription=yes If there is an OCLC # available, I set the parameter |oclc= so that a reader can go find the print source in a library. 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 mmitar@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
This reminds me of ugly practices of proprietary software companies