Talk:Pay wall

An article on Yahoo news just used the term "pay wall". it will be interesting to see if page traffic to this article goes up at all. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yup, looks like it did. See this page. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/30276 "Did Palin's looks hurt?" by Ben Smith, politico.com – Thu Mar 5, 9:33 am ET Featured Topics: Barack Obama Presidential Transition

I am still seeing locked articles on the WSJ site, so clearly the paywall has not been removed there. But I guess that is original research.80.101.113.45 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked at its website. It does charge for its online digital edition: US$95 per annum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.103.48 (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really ethical to have that section? XP --Anonymous, 15:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.45.211 (talk)

Our mission is to inform as thoroughly, accurately, and unbiasedly as legally possible. Wikipedia has no ethics beyond those (except WP:Civility between editors). See also: The Rorschach Test hullabaloo --Cybercobra (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure; this could be considered linking to sites that host copyright violations, which is generally discouraged: 'Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.' On the other hand, we're not technically linking to copyright violations here - we're linking to sites that enable people to circumvent paywalls, should they wish to, which is slightly different. Given that we already have plenty of articles on subjects like DeCSS that explain how to break copy protection and provide means of doing so, and given that there's an encyclopaedic purpose in mentioning such websites. I think it's entirely justified here. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it still seems a bit odd having a section that's basically telling you how to break the law. --The same Anonymous from earlier, 烏Γ ^{(kaw at me)}, 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem odd to me at all. "Legal" is not the same as "ethical." Countermeasures against paywalls are notable information. As for ethical: if pro-paywall people claim that paywalls are ethical, but anti-paywall people claim that paywalls are unethical (or claim that circumventing copyright is not an ethical issue at all), how or why would the article decide? It can't, and it shouldn't, and thus one the reasons for WP:NPOV. To maintain NPOV, the article cannot implicitly--i.e. by excluding notable information altogether--favor one view over the other. The same can be said for thousands upon thousands of other articles that in some way mention ("deviant") behaviors that are illegal somewhere, and reference their communities and methods. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to paywall and put a redirect here, as that is the more common usage. Sources:

• Bloomberg
• Yahoo News
• The Guardian
• The Independent
• BBC News

A search for pay wall on Google results in the message Did you mean: paywall IainUK talk 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]