[WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Alec Conroy wrote:
> On 12/21/08, Thomas Larsen wrote:
>>  I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
>>  understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
>>  understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
>>  forbid, _misunderstood_.
>>     
> My experience is 100% to the contrary.   By and large, we're not
> exclusively laypeople-- often we ARE the experts.  Our math articles
> are written by math experts, our chemistry articles are written by
> chemists, our physics articles are written by physicists.
>
> Plus, however difficult it is to understand articles, it's all the
> more difficult to try to write without any access to them, going
> exclusively by popular press accounts or abstracts.  The results of
> having access are almost guaranteed to be better than the current
> situation, where some editors do have access, some editors don't have
> access, and so it's hard to double-check each other's work.
>   
Thomas's position smacks of traditional elitism: Why inform the public 
when the public can't understand what you say? You can't expect informed 
consent for medical procedures if the public doesn't understand what the 
doctor is saying, so why say it in the first place? 

It may be extremely difficult to understand technical articles that are 
available; it's absolutely impossible to understand them if they aren't 
available. At one time the dissemination of detailed technical 
information was difficult and necessarily expensive.  Electronic means 
have made these difficulties and expenses trivial.  We can now present 
the information to outlying individuals on the long tail of 
accessibility, without needing to identify who those outlying 
individuals might be.  We can, at no extra cost, make the information 
available to those who have no use for it at all; making it available 
does not impose upon them the obligation of availing themselves.

Intellectual property law, at least as envisioned by the framers of the 
US Constitution, has become counterproductive.  The means granted no 
longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and in a 
manner unimaginable in the late 18th century. Rather, they impede that 
progress.  Without free access we are condemning our contributors to 
enforced obsolescence.
>>  2) Service providers would, I think, be unwilling to catch on to this
>>  idea, given the low image of Wikipedia in many areas of academia.
>>     
> I'm skeptical the service providers will think much beyond whether its
> in their own self-interest (be that purely financial, charitable, or
> PR).
>
>   
Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great 
motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image.  It's comparable to the oil 
industry's perception of global warming.

Ec