This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Paywall is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
Paywall is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
I plan to edit this entry adding updated information regarding NYTimes paywall and its reception, local newspaper paywalls, paywall builders, and paywall dodging applications. Aebcoreno (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I just realized that the dodging paywalls section might provide users with ways to actually dodge the paywalls--which I wouldn't want to do, but there are some controversies involving such tools that I think are worth noting. Any suggestions on how to incorporate these without promoting (for lack of a better word) their use? Aebcoreno (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I have made a number of changes- Firstly, the "Failed Paywall" part seemed a bit silly. Many of those paywalls didn't fail, they just changed and re-strategized, often to great success. The Newsday story is no longer relevant. That paper now has over 100k online subscribers, so the story about them only having 35 subscribers in 2010 is irrelevant. Besides, the paywall was never taken down and is still up. The News of the World paywall didn't fail either. The entire paper was eliminated due to ethical scandal. It is not that the paywall failed. Secondly, paywalls have been growing explosively, and real numbers needed to be added. I intend to update this as numbers climb, considering they show no sign of declining, and paywalls are being added every week, if not every day. I also intend to include the publishers now using paywalls- McClatchy, Scripps, Gannett, Lee Enterprises, Tribune, Gatehouse, Berkshire Media and others. I am going to wait a bit though. There are so many new paywalls coming on so quickly, it seems better to wait a few months, or even a year, for this rate of increase to slow. That way it doesn't need to be edited weekly. I am also going to start adding sections on paywall revenue. The New York Times individual paper has now reversed its revenue decline and started growing revenue for the first time in years. This is huge news and a sign of the paywall's success. I will wait till more numbers come out before adding this section. Gannett and Lee will have tens of millions of dollars in new revenue within the year from this. I will add these numbers when they actually come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
OK...so I also added some bits on how Clay Shirky and Felix Salmon have changed their minds on paywalls, since this is a relevant update, and the previous text stated that Felix Salmon is against paywalls. This is clearly dated, since Mr. Salmon now openly champions them. I also made small edits where the text implied that all early paywalls were failures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, would you please create French and Spanish stubs? If you search for NY Times, you can find out that mur payant (Fr) and muro de pago is used respectively. Wikipedia would contribute to limit anglicisms. BTW, the phrases are literal translations of the English original. If I knew how, I would do it myself.
Many science publications are behind a hard paywall, seriously limiting public access to scientific and technological progress - even if that progress is made for taxpayers' money. I strongly believe that the article deserves a section addressing this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Two years later, and nothing about academic journals. Come on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no one in charge here; feel free to help as you can. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)