<quote who="Richard Jensen" date="Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:30:13PM -0600"> > that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands > of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for > years as the main quality control system --peer review--is > destroyed.
If the result of that turmoil is that tax-payers get access to the research they funded and that the product of scientific knowledge is increasing accessible without pay-walls and fees that create roadblocks and exacerbate existing inequalities, I am willing to put up with a little turmoil. There are already thriving open access journals in many fields and plenty of reasons to believe that peer review is not at risk. But even if we had no idea *how* things would work out, let's not let a lack of imagination keep us from standing up for something that is right. Access to scientific knowledge is deeply important -- and a key part of why Wikipedia exists today. Just as Wikipedia has does in the area of reference works -- and lets not pretend Wikipedia growth has been without turmoil -- let's *make* it possible. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [email protected] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
