I wanted to start a discussion on lowering the threshold for access. Very very very few people qualify for the current requirements of 500+ edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the last month, and no active blocks. In fact basically this excludes any new editor no matter how good faith and helpful they have been. Even just lowering one of the account age or edit count thresholds would go a long way.
I recently was pretty shocked to discover this high of a bar for access, after recommending the library as a resource to a new editor who has been doing a great job and (as a young student) could use access to academic source material in creating science-related content. I won't name them, but as an example this editor has over 300 edits and has created just over 50 articles, mainly for missing plant species.
Do the participating institutions require this level of exclusionary criteria? How can we gather data to show them that there are good content contributors being excluded here?
These requirements seem pretty absurd especially since many of the largest resources in the Library, like JSTOR, give any random person with a Google account access to 100 free articles per month. The risk profile of a Wikipedia who say has,100 edits and 1 month of experience has got to be less than that? We should pilot a threshold like that.
Steven