On 12/27/08, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could
be to make better
use of the systems we've already developed on our own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange
I think there are a lot of priorities for WMF funds that rank higher
than buying institutional access to sources.
You speak wisdom. This is the "real" objection to the idea of a WMF
subscription to JSTOR. Real as in, very persuasive and if there's a
reason why it won't happen, you hit the nail on the head.
Right now, I think for almost all of us in this thread, we have no
idea what the WMF bankbook looks like, and we also have no clue what
JSTOR's price would look like. So, those are two pretty huge unknowns
in the equation.
If JSTOR's price is a sufficiently small fraction of the WMF budget, go for it.
If JSTOR's price would be a substantial chunk of the budget, forget it.
--
Although, if it turns out to be prohibitively expensive, the
foundation, it's pr-peeps, and jimbo could still use the JSTOR access
as a way to drum up funds. Any time someone complains about
Wikipedia's accuracy, we could turn that around and say:
"Hey, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain, but if you
think Wikipedia isn't up to snuff compared with other publications,
that's because other publications have funds and we don't. Rather
than complain that our quality is lacking, help us fix it by helping
us get access to JSTOR and places like it." A glorified version of
[[WP:SOFIXIT]].
Just anecdotally, I've met lots of people in academia who have seen
cases where arguments like that are miraculously transformed into
sudden funding opportunities-- whenever someone criticizes you, tell
them what you need to do the job better, and ask them for help.
Alec