That article is referring to The Wikipedia Library, which gives gratis access to editors to services like HighBeam, Questia, MIT Press, and others. Some of the

That article is referring to The Wikipedia Library, which gives gratis access to editors to services like HighBeam, Questia, MIT Press, and others. Some of the concerns are addressed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Whynotoa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Librar... > 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.