I like this draft a lot. Couple of thoughts
- I think we should more clearly state the basic principle of the Access2Research petition sooner. It doesn't seem clear to me that this is about opening up the findings of publicly funded studies. It's in there, and it's stated in the quote from the Access2Research, but I think it would be great to state it more clearly in the paragraph with the bold "what if you already paid for it" or just after.
- I think the 7th paragraph should come earlier, perhaps in the 3rd or 4th paragraph? "Right now, most scholarly information is not reasonably accessible to anyone who lacks access to institutional journal subscriptions or personal wealth. If the spirit of scientific publishing is to spread knowledge for the betterment of society, we believe a model that depends on keeping it out of the hands of the public betrays that aim. We believe in open access and open licensing as fundamental forces to disseminate knowledge, support education, and accelerate discovery." Matthew (WMF) (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
==Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research== The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse [http://access2research.org/ Access2Research] and its [http://wh.gov/6TH petition] to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST. You can read more about this initiative and contribute via these [[Wikipedia:Access2Research|FAQ]].
- Link to Mission statement
- It would be good to illustrate the post with an image taken from an Open Access source, e.g. from Open Access File of the Day. More details on the reuse of OA materials are in BaGLAMa and in the response to the RFI on Open Access. The first image used in the linked section of the latter - File:OA by Discipline.png - could also be used to illustrate the current state of OA: roughly 20% of the scholarly literature (in 2009) free to read and about half of that free to remix and redistribute in a way compatible with both BOAI and Wikimedia policies. This also means that 80% are still inaccessible, and 10% readable but not reusable.
- Mention that OA resources serve as references for thousands of Wikimedia pages. Examples in http://toolserver.org/~dartar/cite-o-meter/?doip=10.1371 and http://toolserver.org/~dartar/cite-o-meter/?doip=10.1186 .
- The issue of open access vs paywall could be illustrated more pronouncedly than with an image of a library, e.g. as in http://wir.okfn.org/2012/02/08/universal-access-to-oxygenated-blood-please-enter-credit-card-details/ and http://wir.okfn.org/2011/12/21/nourishing-science-by-way-of-open-access/ . Correspondingly, the lead could then be switched from talking about access to Wikipedia articles to talking about an embryo's access to the placenta or sucklings' access to the sow's milk. Not sure whether such metaphors would be helpful, though.
- Perhaps try to avoid phrases like "Pleaes sign..." and replace them by "Please consider signing ..."?
- (I disagree with this -- if WMF is taking a position, it should do so boldly. There's no shame in making a request; if the reader wants to disregard the request that's fine of course. -Pete F (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))
- Mention Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access?
This is a link to the video available on Commons