The flip side of the problem is, while in theory all information is verifiable, most citations are checked with a thoroughness and multiplicity of eyeballs in direct correlation to ease of access. If information becomes pay-only for major sources then false information or selective and misrepresented information become higher risks.
The purposes of citations divide roughly into two overlapping needs - 1/ for people who do edit to verify stated content facts, 2/ for readers to find further information and (sometimes) to check content. While both these matter, a situation where cited content is accurate and easily checked by many editors but is not always available for free to readers, is viable. But a situation where other editors cannot easily check a large proportion of cites is not viable. Accordingly if news did become pay-only WMF may obtain some kind of subscription to major sources, accessible to a wide but well defined subset of editors (users with > 500 edits? users agreed by a community process to be suitable?). Universities and such can subscribe and allow students to use the information; the main concern of content providers is not to allow an open ended use by "anyone". We could, at a pinch, work within that and still have enough editors with access that way, to ensure content citing was not being badly abused. The idea of WMF subscribing and some range of users having access isn't new, but if this did arise then it might be time to revisit it. FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
