> > On the other hand, PLoS (plos.org - the public library of science) is > a great journal publisher that reviews and publishes scientific work > under a free license. [They impose even fewer restrictions on reuse > than Wikimedia, using CC-BY, which is a more appropriate license in my > opinion for novel and scientific work.] > > At the very least we should evangalise publishers such as this as a great place to look for specialist sources (for Wikipedia etc.); often I find myself limited to using paid-access sources and I always feel frustrated by this.
Free and open journals are awesome, and any opportunity to make use of them should be encouraged. Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
