Some background:
When I was a librarian open access was one of the principal things I worked on. Stevan has been for over 10 years an acknowledged leaders in this field, and his propaganda for open access has been a key factor for the considerable success it has had--by now all major US and UK granting agencies now require it or are about to do so. All of us who use academic material are very much indebted to him, for I do not think it would have happened to anywhere near this extent without him.
But Stevan is very much set on his own preferred way of doing this. His way is good, but he thinks that only his way is good--to the extent that he has often tried to argue against other ways, even they they differ only in detail, and most of his activism in the last few years has been against other open access advocates. (I am, as you gather, one of the people who thinks other ways are at least as good or possibly better, and I have had many public & private discussions about this with him over the years, not all of them friendly. ).
There are two basic methods:
One is known as "Gold" open access, publishing by open access publishers in journals that are free to the reader, the costs being paid through some form of direct or indirect subsidy from the author, his institution, his granting agency, or other financing arrangement. (Familar examples of this are PLOS or BMC).
The other is known as "Green" open access, publishing in journals in the conventional way, but also putting the articles, or at least unedited drafts of the manuscript ,into a repository. There are two types: using a centralized repository , either on a nationwide or subject-wide basis (the familiar examples of which are PubMed Central in biomedicine and arXiv in physics), or alternatively on an institution-wide basis (good examples are Harvard's DASH or Stevan's own repository at Southampton, ECS )
The only form Stevan supports is institutional repositories. (for reasons, I refer you to his many long postings on American Scientist Open Access Forum , which he moderates in accord with his own views.) He opposes the term open access publishing because it suggests "Gold" Open Access publishers.
When I joined WP three years ago, I found that Stevan was exercising OWNership over the WP article on open access, which almost totally focussed on institutional-based repositories and referenced a great number of his own writings. When I and other made changes, Stevan always reverted them.
Stevan attempted to get his form of the article fixed by personal intervention with an eminent open access supporter very close to his own views who was a member of the WMF Advisory Board, and I believe also with Jimbo. I am also a professional acquaintance of that supporter, an extraordinarily fair-minded person trusted by everyone dealing with the subject at all, and between us in personal discussion with Stevan we were able to convince Stevan to let community processes deal with the article.
As phoebe says, the current wording is reasonable.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG