Hi all, I'm still trying to figure out whether these partnerships are a good or bad thing for Wikimedia. Yes, it's good/great that Wikimedia volunteers are able to access these resources so that they can develop Wikipedia articles, and hence increasing the amount of knowledge that we can freely provide to the world. But on the flip side, what about our readers - as a result of these sort of partnerships, we're increasing the number of times that we'll be pointing them towards paywall-protected services to be able to verify the information we provide, and hence the amount of money they'll be forced to pay to these organisations. And perhaps, as editors, we're supporting paywalls by accepting these offers (and hence making paywalls more prevalent), rather than refusing them until they make the content that they provide freely available. So this is a balancing act - but I'm not currently sure which side outweighs the other, or whether the two sides are currently balancing each other out… What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss these offers in general? Thanks, Mike P.S. I've deliberately biased the view of this email a little towards the negative, to try to offset the positive expectation set out in the previous email a little. I think that I'm currently completely neutral on this issue, though... On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi <wikiocaasi(a)yahoo.com> wrote: momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for ''right now'': of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are '''125''' full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Credo#Sign-up sheet|here]]. articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are '''250''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications|here]]. and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be '''1000''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Questia#Apply here: Round 1|here]]. next-generation idea to create a central '''Wikipedia Library''' where approved editors would have access to ''all'' participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the [ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wiki… Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

So this is a balancing act - but I'm not currently sure which side outweighs the other, or whether the two sides are currently balancing each other out… What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss these offers in general?

Regardless, my congratulations and thanks to Ocassi who's capitalized on this sea change. You've done a significant service to the project.