> These editors are not a special elite or priesthood--any editor with a six-month old account and 500 edits can gain access--they are hardworking, dedicated, core volunteers who are summarizing research for the public. They either have the resources they need to do their work, or they don't. In this research climate, sadly, not having access to major publishers means missing out on some of the best research. Which means our reading public misses out too.
> On a more technical level, it's long been Wikipedia's policy (at least an English Wikipedia policy) that accessibility is actually not a factor in determining the reliability or verifiability of a source. The best information often comes from hard to access materials, such as out-of-print monographs or expensive paywalled and embargoed journals. We use the best sources now to advance our mission: to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia aims to be an open access summary of all reliable knowledge—not a summary of only open access knowledge. If we aim to exclude paywalled sources, our movement would need to have a very deep discussion about what our mission means.
Of course Wikipedia is going to favor open access sources. The average volunteer editor isn't going to have easy access to the paywalled specialized journals on a when editing or creating an article. Having the articles be openly searchable and non-paywalled means that a editor volunteer can drop the citation in easily and without having to go through the various hoops of getting someone who has access to the paywalled sources.
