Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[phoebe ayers]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM, David Goodman  wrote:



> There is an alternate pathway. WPedians should find out what databases
> their local public library already subscribes to,and use them. They
> should then urge their public libraries to subscribe to what they
> need. The subscription rates for public libraries for limited subsets
> of JSTOR are not very high, but few public libraries subscribe, as
> they do not see a demand. Any library would rather spend its money on
> what its patrons will actually use, and ask for.

I agree that this is by far the most practical way to go. Journal &
database licensing is not too different from software licensing...
asking to buy a license for JSTOR for all Wikipedia editors is a lot
like asking to buy a group license for Microsoft Word for all
Wikipedia editors. Expensive, impractical, distinctly non-free, and of
questionable benefit for many. Taking full advantage of your public
library, however, is precisely what they are there for. Those within
range of a good university can typically be a "walk-in" patron and use
their resources on-site, as well.

Institutionally, I think our collective energies would be better spent
supporting the open access movement, free reference databases, efforts
to freely digitize public domain materials, etc. Slowly but surely we
can chip away at closed scholarship...

The problem of backing up our articles with solid scholarship is a big
one, but not one that simple access to any particular database solves.
For one thing, there's hundreds on hundreds of databases (which simply
point to the literature) out there, and thousands and thousands of
journals (which publish the literature) that are indexed by them. For
another thing, as an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source: what we
really need access to are the best of the secondary sources out there,
the specialty encyclopedias and guides and handbooks that summarize
information, not (in most cases) the original journal literature.*
It's true that wider access for some full-text databases would be very
helpful: particularly news and business databases, perhaps, that would
include biographies for many of our BLPs. But fortunately these are
the databases most likely to be available in public library settings,
and unfortunately for everyone a lot of the very best reference
sources are still in print.

-- phoebe


* I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time trying to
reference Wikipedia articles, on all sorts of topics, using the full
arsenal of a good university library.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Goodman]

I agree with Phoebe that in general no university will be able to do
that. Let me add some details, since licensing these materials has for
years been my professional specialty--ever since first such electronic
journals have been available. .

The normal licensing arrangement with a university for most publisher
is that permission is granted for use of the material for any actual
current member of the university, and, often, for anyone with
permission to use the university library who is actually present in
the library. This is typically enforced by a combination of i.p.
-based access fir the university's domain, supplemented with access
through a proxy server for those physically outside the domain--the
access to the proxy server is normally controlled by the university
identification system.

The contract is usually quite specific about who will count as a
member of the university--normally current full or part time students,
staff, and faculty. The university undertakes to enforce access via
the server appropriately, and all universities take this quite
seriously. It is also usually possible to obtain a certain number of
individual passwords for designated individuals, with the university
guaranteeing their proper distribution, as a means of bypassing the
proxy server. Neither the publishers nor the universities usually like
this, because of the nuisance of administration.

Some publishers insist on further restrictions--typically not
permitting what is called walk-in access to those who may have access
to the library, but are not university members. some universities also
for reasons of their own prefer not to give such people access even
when the publisher permits it.

Additional restrictions are sometimes present, especially for the most
expensive material, such as patent of chemical databases: a limit to
the number of simultaneous users, an absolute restriction to campus
use only, a further absolute restriction to use within the library
building only, or even a restriction of the use at a limited number of
designated workstations, or even a single workstation. Typically, the
cheaper the material ,the more flexible the arrangements.

Payment is normally based upon one of three mechanisms: 1/ total head
count numbers of students plus faculty on a per-person basis, 2/ bands
of large/medium/small university size-- generally also taking into
consideration whether it is a research university likely to make
extensive use, or just an undergraduate college, and  3/ sometimes for
the less expensive titles, a flat rate per journal.

I cannot imagine that most publishers will be willing to permit
off-campus access from members of the public, even were the university
willing to pay for it at an increased price. I won't say it is
absolutely impossible, but I have negotiated many contracts and never
even attempted such a provision.

Similarly, I cannot imagine a reputable university prepared to try to
cheat or equivocate on such provisions. I would certainly have refused
to assist any such request. although there is a certain degree of
adversary relationship with publishers as in any situation involving
vendors and purchasers, there is also  reliance upon good fait of the
parties involved. The contracts usually require the university to
assist in the investigation of breeches of the contract (these
attempts are not uncommon--people will try to download extremely large
bodies of material, sometimes for personal use, sometimes for the
purpose of small or even large scale illicit redistribution) -- and
the universities cooperate. (The contracts usually provide for
cancellation of service if they do not so cooperate, but such
cooperation is also seen as reasonable. There have been a few very
large scale breeches over the years. We do not talk much about the
details.) There is a difference between resenting the profits of
commercial publishers, and being willing to steal their property.
WPedians with their emphasis on copyright observance should well
understand this.   .

Public libraries are typically changed for remote access per head
count of the population served, at a reduced rate from that for
universities, assuming a much less intensive use. Control is usually
through a proxy server with access through the library card
identification number.  The most expensive materials will not be
licensed on this basis to public libraries, but only for library use
only, and normally at   a defined number of terminals or for a single
simultaneous user at at time .

The only practical route will be a declared arrangement, either
donated or paid for, for a limited number os users and a limited
amount of material. This is not impossible, especially if the WMF is
willing to operate the necessary proxy server and control the access
to it. If the foundation proposes to try, I know the people to speak
to, and will serve as a contact. But i certainly will do so only
openly and in a commercially respectable manner. the only way of doin

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell  wrote:
>
>> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
>> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
>> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
>> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
>> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
>
>
> Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to
> content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy
> goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an
> unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of
> the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are
> leaving out).
>
>>
>>
>> Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
>> consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we
>> always reinvent the wheel?
>
>
> That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting
> an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as
> authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be
> something that any major university is willing to do?
>
> Something that DGG can perhaps comment on.
>
> Nathan

Hi all,

Speaking as (the other?) professional librarian on the list --

I doubt very much that this would happen, since a) most libraries can
barely afford the subscriptions they have to databases and journals;
and b) the cost of those subscriptions is almost always based on the
number of people served -- usually the number of faculty and students
on the campus. Limiting the use of these databases to the campus
population is taken very seriously, and usually done by IP access,
authenticated through a proxy server by whatever login system the
campus uses.

I can't envision a way that we could restrict access to the
databases/journals that WMF could hypothetically subscribe to, to any
reasonable population, when anyone can sign up for a Wikimedia
account.

-- phoebe

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Alec Conroy]

On 12/27/08, Sage Ross  wrote:
>  Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could be to make better
>  use of the systems we've already developed on our own:
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange
>
>  I think there are a lot of priorities for WMF funds that rank higher
>  than buying institutional access to sources.

You speak wisdom.   This is the "real" objection to the idea of a WMF
subscription to JSTOR.   Real as in,  very persuasive and if there's a
reason why it won't happen, you hit the nail on the head.

Right now, I think for almost all of us in this thread, we have no
idea what the WMF bankbook looks like, and we also have no clue what
JSTOR's price would look like.  So, those are two pretty huge unknowns
in the equation.

If JSTOR's price is a sufficiently small fraction of the WMF budget, go for it.
If JSTOR's price would be a substantial chunk of the budget, forget it.
--

Although, if it turns out to be prohibitively expensive, the
foundation, it's pr-peeps, and jimbo could still use the JSTOR access
as a way to drum up funds.  Any time someone complains about
Wikipedia's accuracy, we could turn that around and say:

   "Hey, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain, but if you
think Wikipedia isn't up to snuff compared with other publications,
that's because other publications have funds and we don't.  Rather
than complain that our quality is lacking, help us fix it by helping
us get access to JSTOR and places like it."A glorified version of
[[WP:SOFIXIT]].

Just anecdotally, I've met lots of people in academia who have seen
cases where arguments like that are miraculously transformed into
sudden funding opportunities--  whenever someone criticizes you, tell
them what you need to do the job  better, and ask them for help.

Alec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last
> posts and your responses.  Providing a direct link is a bit too much
> work this far from my computers.
>
> I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred,
> and ready for whomever would accept them.  Have for years. But it
> seems people are too busy bickering than to bother to take them.
>
> I come back to this list after being absent while on the road for the
> last week to find myself being, effectively, a liar and and
> obstructionist because I expected people to be able to perform a one
> second search to find one of hundreds of thousands of
> PD-claimed-copyright documents in jstor; or because I think it would
> be prudent to work with universitiy libraries first before asking the
> wmf to spend hundreds of thousands of donor money.
>   
If it's too much for you as the person making this claim to provide a 
direct link, then it's clearly also too much for me to waste time going 
through archives from years ago looking for phantom material which I 
don't believe to exist. 

It's nice that you have all this material already in djvu format, but 
are the people who are currently trying to convert the same material 
from pdf to djvu aware of this?  Wouldn't it be more constructive at 
this stage to simply add a comment to the current Scriptorium thread, 
letting the people who are now working on this material that this is 
available?  Griping on this Wiki-en mailing list about some mistaken 
belief that you were not allowed to upload it years ago doesn't do much 
to advance anything.

You are being entirely too thin-skinned when you elevate a claim that 
you have a faulty recall of old events into an accusation of lying. I 
have no idea at all about what occasioned your comment about obstructionism.

Working with university libraries is just fine for those of us who are 
associated with a university, but please don't imagine that the rest of 
us have the same academic sinecure as you.  What's more, a simple 
discussion about exploring the possibilities and price of working with 
JSTOR and others is still far removed from a proposal to spend hundreds 
of thousands of dollars.

Ec

> On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> 
>>> I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
>>> submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray.   I still
>>> have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
>>> community.
>>>   
>> WTF? =-O
>>
>> We seem to be labouring under some misapprehension.  This doesn't at all
>> sound like the kind of thing I would do.
>>
>> For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal
>> Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]
>>
>> Ec
>> 
>>> On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>>   
 Gregory Maxwell wrote:
 
> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
>   
 It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that.  Some Wikisourcerors are
 already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital
 Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.

 We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work  More
 interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of
 a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary
 to public policy.  Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between
 WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.

 Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Goodman]

If I were representing JSOR in this, I would be reluctant to do
business with people who plan in advance how far they will succeed in
finding legal justification for violating the intent of the contracts
they enter into. Publishers normally negotiate in good faith: they are
aware that there will inevitably be some use of the material beyond
whatthey bargain for, but they do not expect a planned effort by the
contracting organization to systematically violate--or encourage or
permit the violation-- of the terms of a contract.

Systematic downloading or republishing their material is explicitly
prohibited in their contracts, and the contracts of any other similar
distributor or publisher. It is fair that they do so. They have
digitized this content, beginning at a time when no other people were
prepared to take the economic risk of doing so, and when it was
entirely unclear whether it was either a technically or economically
feasible proposition. They rely on their revenues for continuing to
digitize further content.

Personally I feel they are somewhat over-rigid in their expectations,
especially in their unwillingness to deal with individuals for
individual article copies:I have told them so in public and private.
But  that does not justify  deliberately  interpreting the contract in
a way they would not regard as reasonable.  If we propose to republish
their material that is originally from PD sources, we must make
explicit arrangements to do so from the start.


On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Wily D  wrote:
> I discussed this matter at some length with User:Danny a while back.
> He was, of course, the point man in JSTOR's fight with the foundation
> over [[JSTOR]], so his perspective might've been skewed, but we never
> could come to an agreement as to whether JSTOR was doing this or not.
> The user agreement contains some delightfully vague language which I
> believe acknowledges that you can do whatever you want with public
> domain documents in a fashion that prevents you from acccidentically
> gleaning this.
>
> How much, and in what fashion, they'd object to taking documents off
> there that are PD, I don't know, but I suspect the only way to find
> out would be to just do it and see.
>
> Cheers
> Brian
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM,   wrote:
>> <> mbimm...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> "I  believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
>> documents, you will immediately  find that they are assessing dubious
>> copyright" and "Could you elaborate on  this and supply a specific
>> example?" could be formed in much nicer  words>>
>> -
>>
>> Although if you look at the history of this thread, you will see that I did
>> ask for a specific example.
>> Now that we know of this non-issue let's explore it a bit more.
>> IF I take a photograph, or even "digitize" (scan) a print document, I own
>> the copyright to what *I* have done.
>> That does *not* give me an automatic copyright to the underlying work *of
>> someone else* and this is the key point here.
>>
>> If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
>> National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image.  That does NOT give me a
>> copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged.  If I take a
>> picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I gain a copyright to my image.  Not to  
>> the item
>> imaged.
>>
>> My copyright to my image whether paper or digital, whether glossy, flat, or
>> airbrushed.  Any derivative work based substantially on my image, in such a
>> way as to deprive me of income from my image, etc etc etc.
>>
>> This, as I'm sure we're all aware, does not, in any way, prevent anyone  from
>> taking SAID image (even), extracting all the text from it, and then
>> presenting it as the original PD document (in plain text not as an image).
>>
>> SHOULD you not be so lazy as to actually get your own copy of said original
>> PD document, I'm sure you'll sleep much sounder.
>> I however won't be limited by that level of silliness.
>>
>> Now can we move on?
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
>> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
>> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Wily D]

I discussed this matter at some length with User:Danny a while back.
He was, of course, the point man in JSTOR's fight with the foundation
over [[JSTOR]], so his perspective might've been skewed, but we never
could come to an agreement as to whether JSTOR was doing this or not.
The user agreement contains some delightfully vague language which I
believe acknowledges that you can do whatever you want with public
domain documents in a fashion that prevents you from acccidentically
gleaning this.

How much, and in what fashion, they'd object to taking documents off
there that are PD, I don't know, but I suspect the only way to find
out would be to just do it and see.

Cheers
Brian

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM,   wrote:
> < mbimm...@gmail.com writes:
>
> "I  believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
> documents, you will immediately  find that they are assessing dubious
> copyright" and "Could you elaborate on  this and supply a specific
> example?" could be formed in much nicer  words>>
> -
>
> Although if you look at the history of this thread, you will see that I did
> ask for a specific example.
> Now that we know of this non-issue let's explore it a bit more.
> IF I take a photograph, or even "digitize" (scan) a print document, I own
> the copyright to what *I* have done.
> That does *not* give me an automatic copyright to the underlying work *of
> someone else* and this is the key point here.
>
> If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
> National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image.  That does NOT give me a
> copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged.  If I take a
> picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I gain a copyright to my image.  Not to  the 
> item
> imaged.
>
> My copyright to my image whether paper or digital, whether glossy, flat, or
> airbrushed.  Any derivative work based substantially on my image, in such a
> way as to deprive me of income from my image, etc etc etc.
>
> This, as I'm sure we're all aware, does not, in any way, prevent anyone  from
> taking SAID image (even), extracting all the text from it, and then
> presenting it as the original PD document (in plain text not as an image).
>
> SHOULD you not be so lazy as to actually get your own copy of said original
> PD document, I'm sure you'll sleep much sounder.
> I however won't be limited by that level of silliness.
>
> Now can we move on?
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Sage Ross]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Nathan  wrote:

>
> But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get
> anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they
> are a part of the problem.
>
> Nathan

Sorry to jump in so late in the thread... At least in my experience,
it's very easy for editors without the subscriptions they need to get
articles from other Wikipedians, and quickly.

Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could be to make better
use of the systems we've already developed on our own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange

I think there are a lot of priorities for WMF funds that rank higher
than buying institutional access to sources.  Before we try to make
Wikipedia more like a university this particular respect (journal
access), we should improve the editing experience (socially and
technically) so that it's a place where more editors will stay for 4
years.  Giving editors less reason to rely on others (to obtain
sources, in this case) may even be counterproductive to that end.

As someone with institutional access to many hard-to-find things, I
know I get a warm feeling whenever I'm able to provide another editor
with the source they were looking for.  Those kinds of interactions, I
think, keep me tied to the project more than work I do in my own
little corner.

-Sage (User:Ragesoss)

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last
posts and your responses.  Providing a direct link is a bit too much
work this far from my computers.

I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred,
and ready for whomever would accept them.  Have for years. But it
seems people are too busy bickering than to bother to take them.

I come back to this list after being absent while on the road for the
last week to find myself being, effectively, a liar and and
obstructionist because I expected people to be able to perform a one
second search to find one of hundreds of thousands of
PD-claimed-copyright documents in jstor; or because I think it would
be prudent to work with universitiy libraries first before asking the
wmf to spend hundreds of thousands of donor money.

 If that's how thing are going to be run here- then so be it- No need
to expend any more of my effort. Enjoy.





On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
>> submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray.   I still
>> have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
>> community.
>>
> WTF? =-O
>
> We seem to be labouring under some misapprehension.  This doesn't at all
> sound like the kind of thing I would do.
>
> For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal
> Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]
>
> Ec
>>
>> On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>>
>>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>>
 So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
 public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
 contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
 Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
 indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?

>>> It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that.  Some Wikisourcerors are
>>> already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital
>>> Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
>>>
>>> We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work  More
>>> interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of
>>> a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary
>>> to public policy.  Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between
>>> WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
>>>
>>> Ec
>>>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

Hah, the eggnog might be part of the problem. ;)

On 12/26/08, George Herbert  wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nathan  wrote:
>
>> This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
>>
>> Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
>>
>> But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get
>> anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they
>> are a part of the problem.
>
>
> I've always aspired to be part of the problem.
>
> I welcome such community affirmations that I have, in fact, arrived.
>
>
> In all seriousness - it's Christmas, people.  Put the swear words down and
> go drink more eggnog.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[George Herbert]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
>
> Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
>
> But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get
> anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they
> are a part of the problem.


I've always aspired to be part of the problem.

I welcome such community affirmations that I have, in fact, arrived.


In all seriousness - it's Christmas, people.  Put the swear words down and
go drink more eggnog.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Nathan]

This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.

Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.

But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get
anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they
are a part of the problem.

Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
> submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray.   I still
> have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
> community.
>   
WTF? =-O

We seem to be labouring under some misapprehension.  This doesn't at all 
sound like the kind of thing I would do.

For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal 
Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]

Ec
>
> On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>   
>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> 
>>> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
>>> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
>>> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
>>> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
>>> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
>>>   
>> It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that.  Some Wikisourcerors are
>> already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital
>> Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
>>
>> We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work  More
>> interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of
>> a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary
>> to public policy.  Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between
>> WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
>>
>> Ec
>> 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Alec Conroy wrote:
>>  Either way, this entire issue is moot.
>>  We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or  
>> actually
>>  asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
>> 
> Exactly.   If a text is under copyright it can't be on Wikisource.  If
> it's PD, it can be.  And we have elaborate mechanisms in place to make
> sure that part of things works.
>
> As to JSTOR and their contract law, that's between the uploader and
> JSTOR.  If I promise them, in their terms of service, I won't copy the
> text of a PD document,  but then I break my promise and copy it to
> Wikisource anyway, maybe _I_ did something wrong, but that's between
> me and  JSTOR, and it's up to the courts and whatever Gods may be to
> sort it all out.
>
> But the guiding principle is-- if it's PD it can go up, it's under
> copyright it comes down.  What private contracts were made between the
> uploader and other parties-- that's got nothing to do with our
> project.  We can't know what private side deals have been made, nor
> should we, nor can anyone expect us to.
>
> -
>
> Now, if JSTOR, as part of some deal with the foundation, insists the
> foundation promise to refuse to HOST certain public domain texts, no
> matter who contributes them, then that WOULD be a dealbreaker I think.
>  But they haven't asked, so we'll cross that bridge in the unlikely
> event that we come to it.
Basing their position on contract law is much shakier than anything that 
copyright law can throw at us.  An effective contract between JSTOR and 
WMF would depend on WMF's ability to herd cats.  That's a shaky 
prospect.  A blanket prohibition of certain PD texts would need to apply 
to any copy of that text, whether we got them from JSTOR or from a 
contributor's private paper copy.  Once they have been OCR'ed and 
Wikified can they prove that they were even taken from their database?  
The marks showing that source was from a particular copy in a certain 
library are of no interest to us.

Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

Ian you're right I overspoke.
 
If I scan a document, I don't create a new copyright for that, as I'm  merely 
doing a mechanical action, which shows no originality.
 
On the photograph issue, I agree with the way you framed it.  If a  person 
merely takes a picture of some copyrighted object that does not create a  new 
copyrightable object.
 
I think my point was that JSTOR, rightly or wrongly, is asserting copyright  
over the images they've taken.  Not over the underlying paper documents,  
which are PD.  So the mere fact that JSTOR has digitized a document doesn't  
create an overwhelming burden for us.  The document itself can still be put  on 
wikisource as pure text or even as someone else's image, just not as a copy  of 
the image from JSTOR.  That would be the way I'd approach it.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ian Woollard]

2008/12/26  :
> IF I take a photograph, or even "digitize" (scan) a print document, I own
> the copyright to what *I* have done.

Careful here. I'm pretty sure that to successfully assert copyright,
you need to have contributed some reasonable degree of *originality*;
and then at *best* you have copyright over the additional, original
elements that were not in the original work.

If you take a carefully framed and lit photograph, then those aspects
are copyrightable. If somebody chopped off everything except the
document and copied that, you probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on
in most jurisdictions.

> Will Johnson

-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be much better.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

 
<>


I would hope it would be fairly apparent, that if I respons with "piss off  
with your attitude" that I am, in fact, responding to a hostile message.   
Otherwise why would I mention "your attitude" ?
 
To me "WTF" says "YOU ... ARE... AN... IDIOT" I have to hold your hand and  
speak slowly.
 
It is not *my problem* to demonstrate that my own statements are backed  with 
evidence.  That is up to the person speaking.  If I say {{fact}}  it is not 
my requirement that I find the evidence.  It is the requirement  of whoever is 
asserting the statement.  That is one of the core  foundational procedures we 
have had in place in-project for years.  You are  the one saying it... so you 
show the evidence.
 
When I ask what the evidence is, to be responded-to with a "wtf" says to  me
" I can't believe we have to prove the sky is blue to this guy!"
 
It's quite hostile.  In my world.  Population one.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/26  :
>   
>> If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
>> National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image.  That does NOT give me a
>> copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged.  If I take a
>> picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I gain a copyright to my image.  Not to  
>> the item
>> imaged.
>> 
> Quite possibly false - see Bridgeman v. Corel.
>
>   
I would grant him copyright on his original picture of the Lincoln 
Memorial, especially if his girl griend is in the picture standing in 
front of the memorial.

A picture of the Declaration of Independence is a different matter, 
except that with a big bright washed-out spot from the reflected 
flashbulb and red-eyes on the glass there may be enough originality. :-)


Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I David am not the one who threw WTF in the face of a serious contributor  as 
> if I was a complete idiot.
> I do not appreciate that type of hostility, to a serious point of  
> contention, for which no evidence was produced, and will respond with equal  
> hostility 
> when aroused.

I wouldn't consider "WTF" by itself to be hostile.  I view it as an 
expression of great surprise.

Comments like "So piss off with your attitude." are a different matter.

Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Alec Conroy]

>  Either way, this entire issue is moot.
>  We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or  actually
>  asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.


Exactly.   If a text is under copyright it can't be on Wikisource.  If
it's PD, it can be.  And we have elaborate mechanisms in place to make
sure that part of things works.

As to JSTOR and their contract law, that's between the uploader and
JSTOR.  If I promise them, in their terms of service, I won't copy the
text of a PD document,  but then I break my promise and copy it to
Wikisource anyway, maybe _I_ did something wrong, but that's between
me and  JSTOR, and it's up to the courts and whatever Gods may be to
sort it all out.

But the guiding principle is-- if it's PD it can go up, it's under
copyright it comes down.  What private contracts were made between the
uploader and other parties-- that's got nothing to do with our
project.  We can't know what private side deals have been made, nor
should we, nor can anyone expect us to.

-

Now, if JSTOR, as part of some deal with the foundation, insists the
foundation promise to refuse to HOST certain public domain texts, no
matter who contributes them, then that WOULD be a dealbreaker I think.
 But they haven't asked, so we'll cross that bridge in the unlikely
event that we come to it.

Alec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

<>
 
Well David, in the case he pointed to, is stating that under US law (which  
is what governs Wikipedia), they don't even own a copyright to the images.
 
What I'm saying, is that even *if* they had a copyright to the images, they  
don't own a copyright to the text.
 
"Download or print" is the entire issue in my mind.  If you want a  copy of 
the *information* in the image, you don't have to download or print it,  you 
can simply clip out the text and render it as plain text, over which, even  
with 
a photographic claim, they would have no copyright.
 
Either way, this entire issue is moot.
We should wait until such time as JSTOR actually sues Wikipedia, or  actually 
asserts a claim over a specific instance of plain text.
We should, imho, refrain from making copies of their images, whether they  
actually enjoy a valid copyright claim or not.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:34 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2008/12/26  :
>> <> gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
>
>>> Wtf go  look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
>>> thousands of  pre 1928 pd documents.>>
>
>> WTF? WTF?
>> Ok wtf back at ya.  I call your bluff and raise you.
>> I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no  evidence.
>> So piss off with your attitude.  And merry christmas !
>> Now let's see some evidence.
>
>
> Y'know, there's scepticism and then there's just being lazy.
>
> Go to www.jstor.org, click on "Terms and Conditions" and you tell me
> what 2.2 and 2.3 say.

I think 2.2 (i) is particularly relevant:

"download or print, or attempt to download or print, an entire issue
or issues of journals or substantial portions of the entire run of a
journal" - whether that refers to the images or the contents seems
moot really.

I would like to point out here that there are other databases that are
generally free to use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysics_Data_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed_Central

Are the two I most often use.

Though others, like the Nature archives, are still difficult to access:

http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html

Nicely laid out, but once you get to the issue you want, you still
invariably hit a paywall.

> ps: your civility levels in these two messages are somewhat below
> suitable levels for the list, and I wouldn't mention it except I've
> already had complaints this quicly.

It's Christmas. Don't do anything based on what was said to me. :-)

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/26  :

> If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
> National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image.  That does NOT give me a
> copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged.  If I take a
> picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I gain a copyright to my image.  Not to  the 
> item
> imaged.


Quite possibly false - see Bridgeman v. Corel.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

I David am not the one who threw WTF in the face of a serious contributor  as 
if I was a complete idiot.
I do not appreciate that type of hostility, to a serious point of  
contention, for which no evidence was produced, and will respond with equal  
hostility 
when aroused.
Much like Debby Harry.
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/26/2008 11:35:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
dger...@gmail.com writes:

ps: your  civility levels in these two messages 

**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/26  :

> OMG...
> THIS is what you are screaming about?
> Silly silly silly boy.
> They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
> They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
> *Throws up hands*
> Next non-issue please.
> You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the text obviously.


Not in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation

Possibly in the UK. Case law is not entirely clear, basically no-one
wants to go first.

Tthough in the case of the National Portrait Gallery, Wikipedia long
ago said "Make my day." And the V&A has endorsed us getting photos of
lots of their stuff, see [[WP:WLART]], so the attempt to impose such
conditions may come to be seen as being as odious as it is.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

<>
-
 
Although if you look at the history of this thread, you will see that I did  
ask for a specific example.
Now that we know of this non-issue let's explore it a bit more.
IF I take a photograph, or even "digitize" (scan) a print document, I own  
the copyright to what *I* have done.
That does *not* give me an automatic copyright to the underlying work *of  
someone else* and this is the key point here.
 
If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the  
National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image.  That does NOT give me a  
copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged.  If I take a  
picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I gain a copyright to my image.  Not to  the 
item 
imaged.
 
My copyright to my image whether paper or digital, whether glossy, flat, or  
airbrushed.  Any derivative work based substantially on my image, in such a  
way as to deprive me of income from my image, etc etc etc.
 
This, as I'm sure we're all aware, does not, in any way, prevent anyone  from 
taking SAID image (even), extracting all the text from it, and then  
presenting it as the original PD document (in plain text not as an image).
 
SHOULD you not be so lazy as to actually get your own copy of said original  
PD document, I'm sure you'll sleep much sounder.
I however won't be limited by that level of silliness.
 
Now can we move on?
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Michael Bimmler]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Michael Bimmler  wrote:

> Okay, folks, can we keep this civil please? I'm sure both of you can
> frame statements like "I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
> documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious
> copyright" and "Could you elaborate on this and supply a specific
> example?" could be formed in much nicer words...especially around
> Christmas.
>

And I'm sure I could form coherent sentences if I really wanted to.
Anyway, I think my point should be borderline-intelligible :-)

-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/26 David Gerard :
> 2008/12/26  :

>> WTF? WTF?
>> Ok wtf back at ya.  I call your bluff and raise you.
>> I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no  evidence.
>> So piss off with your attitude.  And merry christmas !
>> Now let's see some evidence.

> Y'know, there's scepticism and then there's just being lazy.
> Go to www.jstor.org, click on "Terms and Conditions" and you tell me
> what 2.2 and 2.3 say.


And for further enlightenment, why don't you do the obvious non-lazy
thing and google "jstor public domain" and read the complaints that
JSTOR are doing precisely what people complain they are doing.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Carcharoth]

Yes. Though I'm not the one screaming here. :-)

Carcharoth

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM,   wrote:
> OMG...
> THIS is what you are screaming about?
> Silly silly silly boy.
> They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
> They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
> *Throws up hands*
> Next non-issue please.
> You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the text obviously.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:26:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
>
> Agreed,  including Philosophical Transactions, a journal that started in
> 1665:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions
>
> Though  to be fair, the digitisation only seems to go back to the 1800s so
> far.
>
> This was  interesting...
>
> http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/royalsociety/
>
> Carcharoth
>
> On  Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell   wrote:
>> Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds  of
>> thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
>>
>>
>>
>>  On 12/25/08, wjhon...@aol.com   wrote:
>>>
>>> In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM  Pacific Standard Time,
>>> arrom...@rahul.net  writes:
>>>
>>> There  are plenty of things which people  can't just force you to do, but
>>> which you  can agree to do as  part of a contract.  If access depends on a
>>> license   agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it   does.>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  -
>>>
>>> So I take it there aren't  any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
>>>
>>> I'm glad we  can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
>>>
>>> Will  Johnson
>>>
>>>
>>> **One site keeps you  connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
>>> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try  it now.
>>>
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
>>>  ___
>>> WikiEN-l mailing  list
>>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from  this mailing list, visit:
>>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>  ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing  list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this  mailing list, visit:
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l  mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this  mailing list,  visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/26  :
> < gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:

>> Wtf go  look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
>> thousands of  pre 1928 pd documents.>>

> WTF? WTF?
> Ok wtf back at ya.  I call your bluff and raise you.
> I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no  evidence.
> So piss off with your attitude.  And merry christmas !
> Now let's see some evidence.


Y'know, there's scepticism and then there's just being lazy.

Go to www.jstor.org, click on "Terms and Conditions" and you tell me
what 2.2 and 2.3 say.

ps: your civility levels in these two messages are somewhat below
suitable levels for the list, and I wouldn't mention it except I've
already had complaints this quicly.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Michael Bimmler]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:28 PM,   wrote:
> < gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Wtf go  look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
> thousands of  pre 1928 pd documents.>>
> ---
>
> WTF? WTF?
>
> Ok wtf back at ya.  I call your bluff and raise you.
> I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no  evidence.
> So piss off with your attitude.

Okay, folks, can we keep this civil please? I'm sure both of you can
frame statements like "I believe if you look into JSTOR's pre-1928
documents, you will immediately find that they are assessing dubious
copyright" and "Could you elaborate on this and supply a specific
example?" could be formed in much nicer words...especially around
Christmas.

Cheers, belated merry christmas to everyone and Happy New Year!

Michael


-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

OMG...
THIS is what you are screaming about?
Silly silly silly boy.
They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
*Throws up hands*
Next non-issue please.
You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the text obviously.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:26:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:

Agreed,  including Philosophical Transactions, a journal that started in  
1665:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions

Though  to be fair, the digitisation only seems to go back to the 1800s so  
far.

This was  interesting...

http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/royalsociety/

Carcharoth

On  Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell   wrote:
> Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds  of
> thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
>
>
>
>  On 12/25/08, wjhon...@aol.com   wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM  Pacific Standard Time,
>> arrom...@rahul.net  writes:
>>
>> There  are plenty of things which people  can't just force you to do, but
>> which you  can agree to do as  part of a contract.  If access depends on a
>> license   agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it   does.>>
>>
>>
>>  -
>>
>> So I take it there aren't  any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
>>
>> I'm glad we  can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
>>
>> Will  Johnson
>>
>>
>> **One site keeps you  connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
>> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try  it now.
>>  
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
>>  ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing  list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from  this mailing list, visit:
>>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>  ___
> WikiEN-l mailing  list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this  mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l  mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this  mailing list,  visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

<>
---
 
WTF? WTF?
 
Ok wtf back at ya.  I call your bluff and raise you.
I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no  evidence.
So piss off with your attitude.  And merry christmas !
Now let's see some evidence.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Carcharoth]

Agreed, including Philosophical Transactions, a journal that started in 1665:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Transactions

Though to be fair, the digitisation only seems to go back to the 1800s so far.

This was interesting...

http://www.chrisharrison.net/projects/royalsociety/

Carcharoth

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell  wrote:
> Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
> thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
>
>
>
> On 12/25/08, wjhon...@aol.com  wrote:
>>
>> In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> arrom...@rahul.net writes:
>>
>> There  are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
>> which you  can agree to do as part of a contract.  If access depends on a
>> license  agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it  does.>>
>>
>>
>> -
>>
>> So I take it there aren't any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
>>
>> I'm glad we can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>>
>>
>> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
>> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
>> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.



On 12/25/08, wjhon...@aol.com  wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> arrom...@rahul.net writes:
>
> There  are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
> which you  can agree to do as part of a contract.  If access depends on a
> license  agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it  does.>>
>
>
> -
>
> So I take it there aren't any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
>
> I'm glad we can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
> (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell  wrote:
> On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
>>> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
>>> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
>>> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
>>> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
>>
>> It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that.  Some Wikisourcerors are
>> already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital
>> Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
>>
>> We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work  More
>> interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of
>> a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary
>> to public policy.  Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between
>> WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
>>
> I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
> submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray.   I still
> have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
> community.

RSOL = Royal Society Online?

Carcharoth

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to
submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray.   I still
have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource
community.


On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
>> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
>> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
>> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
>> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
>
> It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that.  Some Wikisourcerors are
> already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital
> Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
>
> We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work  More
> interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of
> a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary
> to public policy.  Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between
> WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
>
> Ec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

Jussi, private archives are not "published" and so they fail WP:RS on that  
specific note.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/25/2008 3:34:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
cimonav...@gmail.com writes:

Andrew  Gray wrote:
> 2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz  :
>   
>> I hate to pop  into this, but have we thought about the question of
>> reader  access. By this I mean as it currently is with most of our
>>  sources, our readers are able to verify the articles themselves if
>>  they wish to. If we start to use sources that only certain people  can
>> access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to  verify
>> what we write.
>>  
>
> We've discussed this before, in a general case, and pretty  much dismissed 
it.
>
> Limiting ourselves to easily-accessible  sources sounds good in
> practice, but immediately runs into trouble. We  simply can't write
> articles on most of our subjects to a good and  reliable standard
> without relying heavily on access to print books  (which people object
> to because they're offline) or subscription  databases (which people
> object to because they're not accessible to  casual users).
>
> (This should be distinguished from, eg, people  sourcing things to
> private archives; in the former case they're  accessible by anyone who
> goes through the right channels, but in the  latter they may be
> literally inaccessible to anyone  else...)
>
>   

This brings to mind an  interesting case...

About how to source an un-prejudiced article about  the
former Finnish president [[Urho Kaleva Kekkonen]]. A
vastly  controversial figure in Finnish politicians.

The problem of sourcing  stands thus:

While there have been researchers of varying  credibility
writing about Kekkonen (some clearly conspiracy nuts,
others  with a clear wish to create a national mythos around
his persona, with no  problems about letting the mythopoiesis
be transparent, and some serious  seeming researchers), the
big festering problem with "Kekkolology" has been  the
asymmetry of access to primary sources that researchers
have  had.

The researcher Juhani Suomi long held a near solitary
access to  Kekkonens private archives, as he was chosen
by Kekkonens estate holders to  create a "definitive"
biography the statesman. This was vociferously  criticized
by the conspiracy nuts on the other hand, and at least
on the  surface serious people such as his successor
Mauno Koivisto, who wanted in  his own retirement
years write a wider historiography of the era, in  which
both of them operated (him still as a Prime Minister in
the  critical years). The accusations were both about
the inequality of access  to the primary sources, but
also about the fact that Suomi might have been  a partisan
for the cause of the agrarian centrist party Kekkonen  and
Suomi were both aligned with, thus creating a "official"
party  historiography of the man.

This inspires me to check out the talk page  of that
article, to study how wikipedias editors have solved
that knotty  problem.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville  Heiskanen

___
WikiEN-l  mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this  mailing list,  visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz :
>   
>> I hate to pop into this, but have we thought about the question of
>> reader access. By this I mean as it currently is with most of our
>> sources, our readers are able to verify the articles themselves if
>> they wish to. If we start to use sources that only certain people can
>> access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to verify
>> what we write.
>> 
>
> We've discussed this before, in a general case, and pretty much dismissed it.
>
> Limiting ourselves to easily-accessible sources sounds good in
> practice, but immediately runs into trouble. We simply can't write
> articles on most of our subjects to a good and reliable standard
> without relying heavily on access to print books (which people object
> to because they're offline) or subscription databases (which people
> object to because they're not accessible to casual users).
>
> (This should be distinguished from, eg, people sourcing things to
> private archives; in the former case they're accessible by anyone who
> goes through the right channels, but in the latter they may be
> literally inaccessible to anyone else...)
>
>   

This brings to mind an interesting case...

About how to source an un-prejudiced article about the
former Finnish president [[Urho Kaleva Kekkonen]]. A
vastly controversial figure in Finnish politicians.

The problem of sourcing stands thus:

While there have been researchers of varying credibility
writing about Kekkonen (some clearly conspiracy nuts,
others with a clear wish to create a national mythos around
his persona, with no problems about letting the mythopoiesis
be transparent, and some serious seeming researchers), the
big festering problem with "Kekkolology" has been the
asymmetry of access to primary sources that researchers
have had.

The researcher Juhani Suomi long held a near solitary
access to Kekkonens private archives, as he was chosen
by Kekkonens estate holders to create a "definitive"
biography the statesman. This was vociferously criticized
by the conspiracy nuts on the other hand, and at least
on the surface serious people such as his successor
Mauno Koivisto, who wanted in his own retirement
years write a wider historiography of the era, in which
both of them operated (him still as a Prime Minister in
the critical years). The accusations were both about
the inequality of access to the primary sources, but
also about the fact that Suomi might have been a partisan
for the cause of the agrarian centrist party Kekkonen and
Suomi were both aligned with, thus creating a "official"
party historiography of the man.

This inspires me to check out the talk page of that
article, to study how wikipedias editors have solved
that knotty problem.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 12/24/2008 2:46:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
arrom...@rahul.net writes:

There  are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
which you  can agree to do as part of a contract.  If access depends on a
license  agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it  does.>>


-
 
So I take it there aren't any actual examples of JSTOR doing this.
 
I'm glad we can now ignore this moot issue and move forward.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/25 geni :
> 2008/12/25 David Gerard :

>> At this point the prudent move for us is to do nothing and continue to
>> exist. Which has actually worked out surprisingly well for us so far.

> We've never run into anyone significant who's first reaction is to run
> to PR people and lobbyists. The PRC is hardly western media friendly
> and the poor IWF clearly isn't used to people caring about them. The
> hard Christian right we ran into back in what may? weren't interested
> in having any impact on the wider media. The various German people
> have tended not to realise what they are getting into.


Note that we don't have to be famous to do what we do. Running the #4
website on a budget made of donations is basically a massive pain in
the ass.

We just have to (1) do something worth doing (2) be very clear what it
is (3) keep doing it. We have that.


> It's actually
> quite hard to come up with a company or group that is both rich and
> media savy that we could end up seriously inconveniencing. School text
> book people perhaps?


They're haemorrhaging money without us. If Wikibooks texts start
getting used in proper schools, they might worry. But if a Wikibooks
text is up to the task, it'll get used in places they don't bother
selling to. c.f. Schools-Wikipedia, which was created for SOS
Children's Villages to use in their own schools and just happens to
have become very popular with teachers around the world.


> Getty might be a candidate but their problem is
> more the internet as a whole(and since they are still worth a couple
> of billion they would appear to be surviving that).


Getty Images makes its living from the Internet.


> The pictures of
> Mohamed thing was already overdone by the time it reached us but some
> religious groups might be a risk factor I suppose.


Neutrality and principle is our trump card in such situations.

The existence of this project, despite its highly marketable and
credible air of neutrality, does, as an Enlightenment
L'Encyclopedie-style project, push a very strong and detailed point of
view. So who hates the idea of the core of what we do *that much*?
Whose project are we all set to termite horribly?

Wikinews is nice, but unlikely to take over the world any time soon.
Commons would be fantastic if the search wasn't poo. Who else?


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Thomas Larsen]

Hi Ray,

> Thomas's position smacks of traditional elitism: Why inform the public
> when the public can't understand what you say? You can't expect informed
> consent for medical procedures if the public doesn't understand what the
> doctor is saying, so why say it in the first place?

I think you've misunderstood my position. I'm not elitist, but I'm not
anti-elite, either. That's just reasonable.

A general, uninformed member of the public must understand what the
doctor is saying about their condition. However, they don't have to be
able to understand the technical papers that the doctors read and the
textbooks that they were trained with--presumably, there would be
little need for doctors if this was so. Doctors, thus, are
_experts_--experts who interpret the current body of expert knowledge
about various medical topics and make it clear to the average member
of the public.

Of course, therefore, technical papers don't need, and shouldn't, be
written with uneducated members of the public in mind. They need to be
as accurate as possible, not dampened down--so that experts can
understand them. We want society to move forwards, not be held back by
everybody's lack of/varying expertise.

> It may be extremely difficult to understand technical articles that are
> available; it's absolutely impossible to understand them if they aren't
> available. At one time the dissemination of detailed technical
> information was difficult and necessarily expensive.  Electronic means
> have made these difficulties and expenses trivial.  We can now present
> the information to outlying individuals on the long tail of
> accessibility, without needing to identify who those outlying
> individuals might be.  We can, at no extra cost, make the information
> available to those who have no use for it at all; making it available
> does not impose upon them the obligation of availing themselves.

You have misunderstood my position again. I don't oppose the concept
of the public having free access to journals--in fact, I _very_
strongly support it! I'm a very strong advocate of free content and
free access. I'm simply saying that giving general Wikipedians access
to journals, via a paid subscription funded by the Wikimedia
Foundation, that they will not necessarily understand is nonsensical.
What's needed is advocacy for the entirety of academia to make all of
their journals free content or at least freely accessible--that will
benefit both experts, amateurs, and indeed all the public.

—Thomas Larsen

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[geni]

2008/12/25 David Gerard :
> At this point the prudent move for us is to do nothing and continue to
> exist. Which has actually worked out surprisingly well for us so far.
>

We've never run into anyone significant who's first reaction is to run
to PR people and lobbyists. The PRC is hardly western media friendly
and the poor IWF clearly isn't used to people caring about them. The
hard Christian right we ran into back in what may? weren't interested
in having any impact on the wider media. The various German people
have tended not to realise what they are getting into. It's actually
quite hard to come up with a company or group that is both rich and
media savy that we could end up seriously inconveniencing. School text
book people perhaps? Getty might be a candidate but their problem is
more the internet as a whole(and since they are still worth a couple
of billion they would appear to be surviving that). The pictures of
Mohamed thing was already overdone by the time it reached us but some
religious groups might be a risk factor I suppose.

-- 
geni

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/25 geni :

> Brockhaus never really tried and Britannica is pretty half hearted to
> the point there not even really the go to people when the media want
> an anti-wikipedia comment any more.


Yes, I've noticed it getting ad-hoc.


> No academic publishing has a
> highly profitable business model and one they will fight much harder
> to defend than anyone we've previously run up against.


At this point the prudent move for us is to do nothing and continue to
exist. Which has actually worked out surprisingly well for us so far.


> However we
> cannot meaningfully disrupt their business model (We do not have the
> strength in the academic world to push open access journals
> significantly and the wider public is irrelevant to them).


The open access journals are termiting them nicely for us. They'll
only die on the scale of Microsoft under the onslaught of Linux, or
non-free-content educational materials in general under the onslaught
of Wikipedia, i.e. not any time soon, but soon enough for us.

All we need to do is continue to exist.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[geni]

2008/12/24 David Gerard :
> 2008/12/24 Ray Saintonge :
>
>> Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great
>> motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image.  It's comparable to the oil
>> industry's perception of global warming.
>
>
> It's worked for Britannica and Brockhaus! Oh, wait.
>
>
Brockhaus never really tried and Britannica is pretty half hearted to
the point there not even really the go to people when the media want
an anti-wikipedia comment any more. No academic publishing has a
highly profitable business model and one they will fight much harder
to defend than anyone we've previously run up against. However we
cannot meaningfully disrupt their business model (We do not have the
strength in the academic world to push open access journals
significantly and the wider public is irrelevant to them).


-- 
geni

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ken Arromdee]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> All this talk about copyright on public domain "Text" is  moot.
> You cannot copyright something already in the public domain.
> You can say you are, but your declaration has no power.

There are plenty of things which people can't just force you to do, but
which you can agree to do as part of a contract.  If access depends on a
license agreement to treat PD material as copyrighted, then it does.


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Gerard]

2008/12/24 Ray Saintonge :

> Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great
> motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image.  It's comparable to the oil
> industry's perception of global warming.


It's worked for Britannica and Brockhaus! Oh, wait.


- d.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Alec Conroy wrote:
> On 12/21/08, Thomas Larsen wrote:
>>  I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
>>  understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
>>  understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
>>  forbid, _misunderstood_.
>> 
> My experience is 100% to the contrary.   By and large, we're not
> exclusively laypeople-- often we ARE the experts.  Our math articles
> are written by math experts, our chemistry articles are written by
> chemists, our physics articles are written by physicists.
>
> Plus, however difficult it is to understand articles, it's all the
> more difficult to try to write without any access to them, going
> exclusively by popular press accounts or abstracts.  The results of
> having access are almost guaranteed to be better than the current
> situation, where some editors do have access, some editors don't have
> access, and so it's hard to double-check each other's work.
>   
Thomas's position smacks of traditional elitism: Why inform the public 
when the public can't understand what you say? You can't expect informed 
consent for medical procedures if the public doesn't understand what the 
doctor is saying, so why say it in the first place? 

It may be extremely difficult to understand technical articles that are 
available; it's absolutely impossible to understand them if they aren't 
available. At one time the dissemination of detailed technical 
information was difficult and necessarily expensive.  Electronic means 
have made these difficulties and expenses trivial.  We can now present 
the information to outlying individuals on the long tail of 
accessibility, without needing to identify who those outlying 
individuals might be.  We can, at no extra cost, make the information 
available to those who have no use for it at all; making it available 
does not impose upon them the obligation of availing themselves.

Intellectual property law, at least as envisioned by the framers of the 
US Constitution, has become counterproductive.  The means granted no 
longer "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," and in a 
manner unimaginable in the late 18th century. Rather, they impede that 
progress.  Without free access we are condemning our contributors to 
enforced obsolescence.
>>  2) Service providers would, I think, be unwilling to catch on to this
>>  idea, given the low image of Wikipedia in many areas of academia.
>> 
> I'm skeptical the service providers will think much beyond whether its
> in their own self-interest (be that purely financial, charitable, or
> PR).
>
>   
Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great 
motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image.  It's comparable to the oil 
industry's perception of global warming.

Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

All this talk about copyright on public domain "Text" is  moot.
You cannot copyright something already in the public domain.
You can say you are, but your declaration has no power.
 
Also this line is a bit too vague for me, can you specify, clearly and  
exactly *what* you think Jstor is copyrighting that is PD?
Please be specific, with a specific citation.  Otherwise I call  bull.
 
Thanks
 
Will Johnson
 


**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?

It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that.  Some Wikisourcerors are 
already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital 
Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access. 

We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work  More 
interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of 
a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary 
to public policy.  Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between 
WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.

Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Andrew Gray]

2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz :
> I hate to pop into this, but have we thought about the question of
> reader access. By this I mean as it currently is with most of our
> sources, our readers are able to verify the articles themselves if
> they wish to. If we start to use sources that only certain people can
> access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to verify
> what we write.

We've discussed this before, in a general case, and pretty much dismissed it.

Limiting ourselves to easily-accessible sources sounds good in
practice, but immediately runs into trouble. We simply can't write
articles on most of our subjects to a good and reliable standard
without relying heavily on access to print books (which people object
to because they're offline) or subscription databases (which people
object to because they're not accessible to casual users).

(This should be distinguished from, eg, people sourcing things to
private archives; in the former case they're accessible by anyone who
goes through the right channels, but in the latter they may be
literally inaccessible to anyone else...)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Justin Senseney]

Here's an example:

The University of Maryland has a "Friends of the Libraries" program here:
http://www.lib.umd.edu/giving/borrowers.html  Individuals who donate (tax
deductible, of course) $200 in a year receive the following according to the
website.  No affiliation appears to be necessary:


   - *Borrowing from UM Libraries*. For borrowing policies and procedures,
   see Circulation 

   - Interlibrary Loan 

   - *Remote Access to Alumni Edition Databases (NEW)*

   This benefit is made possible through a partnership with EBSCO
   Information Services.

   - *Academic Search Alumni Edition*. This database provides full text for
  nearly 1,500 publications as well as indexing and abstracting
for over 8,100
  publications. There is information in nearly every area of
academic study.
  See List of
titlesincluded
in the database.

  - *Business Source Alumni Edition*. This database provides nearly
  1,100 full text business magazines and journals. See List of
titlesincluded
in the database


-Justin

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM,  wrote:

>
> In a message dated 12/23/2008 12:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Why does  it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
> consider attaching  to pre-existing university library access? Must we
> always reinvent the  wheel?>>
>
>
> -
>
> Please provide a university library that allows anybody to simply telephone
> them and get access without physically showing up, nor physically living in
> their area of service.
>  I for one would REALLY like to have that.
> Thanks
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> **One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
> Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
> (
> http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025
> )
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Jay Litwyn]

This is probably how some contributors do good work.
They subscribe to a commercial information service, whether it be databases 
or whole electronic archives of past issues. And, then they crib from it, 
and they know how to defend results, because they saw details in the 
experiment, transcript, poll. Maybe they can even see raw data. Local 
libraries do much the same thing that is talked about in this thread. For 
instance, if I want a phone number, there still is not a central directory 
on the internet that I know of, and my library subscribes to a yearly CD 
database for North America. Back in the eighties, my library subscribed to 
paper phone directories for the same region. It took about five square 
metres. 


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Ray Saintonge]

Nathan wrote:
> It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
> to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
> JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
> sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the
> opportunity publicized.
>
> We should avoid general assumptions about any group of people, including
> ours. For instance, either that many editors have access to these resources
> already (I do, but I see no reason to believe "many" do), or that "most of
> academia" has any particular opinion of Wikimedia and its projects.
>
> Perhaps this suggestion was posted to the wrong list - foundation-l would be
> more appropriate, since I don't think individual editors should be
> approaching organizations like JSTOR without the prior notice and approval
> of the Foundation.
You raise an important point about the Foundation being the one to seek 
access.  The usefulness would be across the projects, not just for 
English Wikipedia.  In Wikisource no more than a dozen would likely need 
access at any given time.  Understandably, we wouldn't be duplicating 
the protected material that they host, but more than once I have run 
into their brick wall when I was only trying to find some basic 
information about an author hosted by Wikisource.

Ec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 12/23/2008 12:03:24 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:

Why does  it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
consider attaching  to pre-existing university library access? Must we
always reinvent the  wheel?>>


-
 
Please provide a university library that allows anybody to simply telephone  
them and get access without physically showing up, nor physically living in  
their area of service.
 I for one would REALLY like to have that.
Thanks
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Nathan]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell  wrote:

> So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
> public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
> contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
> Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
> indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?


Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to
content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy
goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an
unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of
the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are
leaving out).

>
>
> Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
> consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we
> always reinvent the wheel?


That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting
an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as
authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be
something that any major university is willing to do?

Something that DGG can perhaps comment on.

Nathan

>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Nathan  wrote:
> It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
> to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
> JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
> sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the
> opportunity publicized.

So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy
public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the
contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity?  Will
Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these
indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?

Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even
consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we
always reinvent the wheel?

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Nathan]

It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access
to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside.
JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not
sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the
opportunity publicized.

We should avoid general assumptions about any group of people, including
ours. For instance, either that many editors have access to these resources
already (I do, but I see no reason to believe "many" do), or that "most of
academia" has any particular opinion of Wikimedia and its projects.

Perhaps this suggestion was posted to the wrong list - foundation-l would be
more appropriate, since I don't think individual editors should be
approaching organizations like JSTOR without the prior notice and approval
of the Foundation.

Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

<>
---
 
The answer to this is "that only certain people can access ONLINE..."
 
Any citation should give a full bibliographic citation that could be looked  
up offline as well.
We would not want to subscribe to any content that is *solely* online and  
doesn't exist offline (such as stirnet.com).
So a subscription to the San Francisco Chronicle, *could* be found in an  
offline format, the online link is merely a convenience link for those who have 
 
access to it.  Readers without, should still be able to verify the content  in 
another fashion.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Wilhelm Schnotz]

I hate to pop into this, but have we thought about the question of
reader access. By this I mean as it currently is with most of our
sources, our readers are able to verify the articles themselves if
they wish to. If we start to use sources that only certain people can
access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to verify
what we write.

I don't know if this has been given thought or not, but it does need
looking into as I think it affects the free nature of the project.
(Eventually I can see cases where articles sources are not free, or
easily gotten freely, which may impact how new users can contribute.)

--
Nixeagle

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[FT2]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:16 AM, George Herbert wrote:

> I think the "can we afford $6 million a year" answer is a clear but not
> absolute no (with a compelling argument, it's in the range of charitable
> donations we could conceivably ask for).
>
> But would for example $100,000, or $500,000, make a significantly useful
> amount to work with?
>
> What could we get for that, and what would be missing?
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
>


... and how many users would we be able to have accessing the database for
that kind of sum?

FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[George Herbert]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM, David Goodman  wrote:

> I comment as a professional academic librarian. I was the cochair of
> princeton's collection development committee on electronic resources
> from the day it started.
>
> The typical budget today for e-resources for a major university is on
> the order of three to six million dollars a year, mainly for science
> journals and databases. The most expensive subscriptions to the works
> of a single publisher can be over one million dollars, and there are
> individual databases in the fifty to one hundred-thousand dollar
> range. A typical budget for a good undergraduate college might be one
> million; it will not have the most expensive journals.
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM, George Herbert
>  wrote:
> > We need to get someone who's more of a professional librarian to look at
> > this and comment.  What are typical university library online reference
> > access budgets like, for example?
> >
> > Phoebe?
>


Thank you, David.

Are those prices proprietary or sensitive, or would it be possible for you
to release a list of what your libraries subscribe to, for discussion and
analysis purposes?

I think the "can we afford $6 million a year" answer is a clear but not
absolute no (with a compelling argument, it's in the range of charitable
donations we could conceivably ask for).

But would for example $100,000, or $500,000, make a significantly useful
amount to work with?

What could we get for that, and what would be missing?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Thomas Larsen]

> My experience is 100% to the contrary.   By and large, we're not
> exclusively laypeople-- often we ARE the experts.  Our math articles
> are written by math experts, our chemistry articles are written by
> chemists, our physics articles are written by physicists.

I think this is definitely true for articles in many of the hard
sciences--maths, physics, chemistry, etc.--but many articles in the
soft sciences are written only by hobbyists (for lack of a better
word).

> Plus, however difficult it is to understand articles, it's all the
> more difficult to try to write without any access to them, going
> exclusively by popular press accounts or abstracts.  The results of
> having access are almost guaranteed to be better than the current
> situation, where some editors do have access, some editors don't have
> access, and so it's hard to double-check each other's work.

That's true, and you have a point here. If more editors had access to
more, reliable content, they would be more able to check one another's
work--provided they could understand the content in question.

> My experience, however, is that everyone in academia LOVES Wikipedia--
> a few old fogeys excepted perhaps.  But people who like to learn love
> a giant encyclopedia that's free and has entries on everything.
>
> Academia loves wikipedia-- they just don't like it when it's used for
> something it's not.  A master carpenter loves having a power
> screwdriver for home repairs--  he just doesn't want to go to his
> jobsite and find his apprentices clumsily trying to use the blunt side
> of a power screwdriver to hammer nails.

I'm not sure you're correct here. Most of academia, in my experience,
thinks Wikipedia is useful but flawed. _I_ think Wikipedia is useful
but flawed. If Wikipedia didn't claim to be an encyclopedia, and thus
claim to abide by all the relevant scholary content standards, it'd be
welcomed, I think, in academia.

Cheers,

—Thomas Larsen

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Casey Brown]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Jon  wrote:
>> If it were a big concern, ring fence your donation?
>>
>
> "ring fence"?
>

There's this cool thing I heard of once, called the "free dictionary".
;-) 

-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

---
Note:  This e-mail address is used for mailing lists.  Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Todd Allen]

I think here, the most good we could probably do is in getting access
to journals that your average public library won't offer. I do get
access to some research resources through the regular public libraries
here, and that's pretty standard. Maybe we should survey what those
offer, to get a better idea where the major gaps might be?

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:41 PM, David Goodman  wrote:
> I comment as a professional academic librarian. I was the cochair of
> princeton's collection development committee on electronic resources
> from the day it started.
>
> The typical budget today for e-resources for a major university is on
> the order of three to six million dollars a year, mainly for science
> journals and databases. The most expensive subscriptions to the works
> of a single publisher can be over one million dollars, and there are
> individual databases in the fifty to one hundred-thousand dollar
> range. A typical budget for a good undergraduate college might be one
> million; it will not have the most expensive journals.
>
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM, George Herbert
>  wrote:
>> We need to get someone who's more of a professional librarian to look at
>> this and comment.  What are typical university library online reference
>> access budgets like, for example?
>>
>> Phoebe?
>>
>>
>> --
>> -george william herbert
>> george.herb...@gmail.com
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Goodman]

I comment as a professional academic librarian. I was the cochair of
princeton's collection development committee on electronic resources
from the day it started.

The typical budget today for e-resources for a major university is on
the order of three to six million dollars a year, mainly for science
journals and databases. The most expensive subscriptions to the works
of a single publisher can be over one million dollars, and there are
individual databases in the fifty to one hundred-thousand dollar
range. A typical budget for a good undergraduate college might be one
million; it will not have the most expensive journals.

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:11 AM, George Herbert
 wrote:
> We need to get someone who's more of a professional librarian to look at
> this and comment.  What are typical university library online reference
> access budgets like, for example?
>
> Phoebe?
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herb...@gmail.com
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Jon]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

FT2 wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell
>  wrote:
>
>> JSTOR also claims ownership over a great deal of indisputably
>> public domain works. I'd hate to think that a penny of my
>> donations to the WMF would be going to support such
>> organizations.
>>
>
>
>
> If it were a big concern, ring fence your donation?
>
> FT2 ___ WikiEN-l
> mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this
> mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"ring fence"?

Jon-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklPF+AACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtV6dgCgj71oeyt92GZkuJbrt56n4Ern
wQIAnRdjBH8n2Nv4922gsZ0aTVDPcuUG
=IHsD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[FT2]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell  wrote:

> JSTOR also claims ownership over a great deal of indisputably public
> domain works. I'd hate to think that a penny of my donations to the
> WMF would be going to support such organizations.
>



If it were a big concern, ring fence your donation?

FT2
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Alec Conroy  wrote:
> JSTOR, as was said by multiple individuals above, is a perfect
> candidate to approach.   They're non-profit, they have some fulltext,
> and they could help greatly with out history articles.

JSTOR also claims ownership over a great deal of indisputably public
domain works. I'd hate to think that a penny of my donations to the
WMF would be going to support such organizations.

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Todd Allen  wrote:
[snip]
> I personally would even be willing to donate to cover WMF's costs
> against my access in this regard, provided they can negotiate
> reasonable block purchase pricing. Individual subscriptions are
> unfortunately rather priced out of the market.

Then as I stated in the old thread I linked to: Get a library card for
a nearby university library.  In absolute terms it's not cheap, but
it's likely the least expensive way for you to get the access... and
it doesn't require anything new: you can do it today.

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Alec Conroy]

On 12/21/08, Thomas Larsen  wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  This is an interesting idea indeed. However, I'm not sure it would
>  fly, for two reasons:
>
>  1) I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
>  understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
>  understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
>  forbid, _misunderstood_.

My experience is 100% to the contrary.   By and large, we're not
exclusively laypeople-- often we ARE the experts.  Our math articles
are written by math experts, our chemistry articles are written by
chemists, our physics articles are written by physicists.

Plus, however difficult it is to understand articles, it's all the
more difficult to try to write without any access to them, going
exclusively by popular press accounts or abstracts.  The results of
having access are almost guaranteed to be better than the current
situation, where some editors do have access, some editors don't have
access, and so it's hard to double-check each other's work.

>  2) Service providers would, I think, be unwilling to catch on to this
>  idea, given the low image of Wikipedia in many areas of academia.

I'm skeptical the service providers will think much beyond whether its
in their own self-interest (be that purely financial, charitable, or
PR).

My experience, however, is that everyone in academia LOVES Wikipedia--
a few old fogeys excepted perhaps.  But people who like to learn love
a giant encyclopedia that's free and has entries on everything.

Academia loves wikipedia-- they just don't like it when it's used for
something it's not.  A master carpenter loves having a power
screwdriver for home repairs--  he just doesn't want to go to his
jobsite and find his apprentices clumsily trying to use the blunt side
of a power screwdriver to hammer nails.

Alec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gwern Branwen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Thomas Larsen  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an interesting idea indeed. However, I'm not sure it would
> fly, for two reasons:
>
> 1) I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
> understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
> understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
> forbid, _misunderstood_.
> 2) Service providers would, I think, be unwilling to catch on to this
> idea, given the low image of Wikipedia in many areas of academia.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> —Thomas Larsen

1) My personal experience would disagree. I am far from expert on
Japanese poetry - I know not a lick of Japanese, and at best I have a
good background understanding - yet I was able to quite profitably
employ a number of papers I found in JSTOR in articles like
[[Shotetsu]] or [[Fujiwara no Teika]]. Academic papers in technical
subjects certainly can be difficult, and I've read any number of math
or computer science papers which are utterly useless to laymen. But
let's beware generalizing that to all papers.
2) That could be an argument for this proposal. 'Perhaps we haven't
been as rigorous and high-quality as you'd like - but we're willing to
improve, if you'll help us.'

- --
gwern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREKAAYFAklPA3UACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oJwBwCgjVcP1G/7tMMS+GHltKI4ebe8
gMoAniiurS/YKe0p6kUIiusj8uShTjGV
=nI9N
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Thomas Larsen]

Hi,

This is an interesting idea indeed. However, I'm not sure it would
fly, for two reasons:

1) I doubt many receivers (of journals, etc.) would be able to
understand them well enough. Academic papers aren't always easy to
understand, especially for a non-expert, and they could be, God
forbid, _misunderstood_.
2) Service providers would, I think, be unwilling to catch on to this
idea, given the low image of Wikipedia in many areas of academia.

Thoughts?

—Thomas Larsen

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Alec Conroy]

JSTOR, as was said by multiple individuals above, is a perfect
candidate to approach.   They're non-profit, they have some fulltext,
and they could help greatly with out history articles. I have
access, and, aside from my semi-permanent habit of navel-gazing, JSTOR
was used in some way or another  in partically ever article I've
substantially edited in the last two years.   I imagine my experiences
are pretty typical.

Also, perhaps controversially, it seems to me humanities databases are
a tiny bit more "within the scope of wikipedia" than the lastest
scientific journals.   I'd like to see both, but most of the people
who need the absolutely lastest, up-to-date word on protein kinases
probably have access to the relevant papers already.   But humanities
change more slowly-- an article on the causes of the french revolution
may gradully  evolve due to new discoveries-- but not nearly as fast a
cutting-edge science article would.   There's also a   lower field to
entry for history/humanities:   anyone who is literate can read an
article on the Taiping Rebellion--  but a smaller population has the
prereqs to immediately read an article about eigenvectors.

That's not to say the latest science journals wouldn't be useful.
After all, the true goal here is access for EVERYONE to EVERYTHING.

But, as others have said, JSTOR definitely looks like the low-hanging
fruit that might yield the most bang for a foundation's buck.

On 12/21/08, Nick  wrote:
> The idea is a good one, the idea of accessing material online came out of
>  something I suggested (and I seriously doubt I'm alone in doing) in
>  suggesting we find volunteers who could be trusted to verify the content of
>  books being used as references in the case of more contentious and
>  potentially problematic BLPs - asking people to go to libraries, find books
>  and verify what is being inferred in a reference actually exists in the
>  book.
>
>  If we can get access to those books for a small pool of trusted users,
>  administrators and such, then that would be brilliant, but I see a couple of
>  problems, I'd say 25% of our biographies are on fairly well known people
>  with plenty of reliable material freely available online, the Einsteins of
>  this world, the bulk of our biogs, say 50-60% are on less well known people
>  where information is harder to come by, but most likely accessible through
>  something like JSTOR, the remainder of our biogs - they would need access to
>  specialist press and publications, stuff that academic targeted resources
>  like JSTOR doesn't really include.
>
>  Of course, JSTOR and access to scientific journals could be useful in
>  improving the content of our articles on various scientific stuff, various
>  history journals for our articles of history and so on.
>
>
>  --
>  Nick
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick
>  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nick
>
> ___
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Nick]

The idea is a good one, the idea of accessing material online came out of
something I suggested (and I seriously doubt I'm alone in doing) in
suggesting we find volunteers who could be trusted to verify the content of
books being used as references in the case of more contentious and
potentially problematic BLPs - asking people to go to libraries, find books
and verify what is being inferred in a reference actually exists in the
book.

If we can get access to those books for a small pool of trusted users,
administrators and such, then that would be brilliant, but I see a couple of
problems, I'd say 25% of our biographies are on fairly well known people
with plenty of reliable material freely available online, the Einsteins of
this world, the bulk of our biogs, say 50-60% are on less well known people
where information is harder to come by, but most likely accessible through
something like JSTOR, the remainder of our biogs - they would need access to
specialist press and publications, stuff that academic targeted resources
like JSTOR doesn't really include.

Of course, JSTOR and access to scientific journals could be useful in
improving the content of our articles on various scientific stuff, various
history journals for our articles of history and so on.

-- 
Nick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nick
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

<>
 
I wouldn't advise subscription to *a* journal, but rather to a collation  
service, that provides access to multiple sources.
The ones I mentioned, Ancestry, Genealogy, and NewspaperArchive are all  
collation services, not journals.
Each has hundreds to thousands of individuals sources within them.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[geni]

2008/12/21  :
> As Todd mentions, some of us already subscribe to various online  services.
> *IF* the WMF could negotiate a group rate, that could be a  win-win situation.
>  I would also come down on the side of "established  editors" versus
> "Admins".  We are trying to ease the situation for our  productive editors 
> and so that
> would make more sense to provide a service like  this to those who are
> actually doing the editing.

Your problem would be getting a big enough group to make it
worthwhile. Fairly few wikipedians are going to be interested in any
given journal and searching them effectively is quite a trick.



-- 
geni

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[WJhonson]

>>In a message dated 12/20/2008 8:06:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
toddmal...@gmail.com writes:

I  personally would even be willing to donate to cover WMF's costs
against my  access in this regard, provided they can negotiate
reasonable block  purchase pricing. Individual subscriptions are
unfortunately rather priced  out of the market.>>
-
For researching biographies of dead people, esp. historical people, one of  
the best paid subscriptions had got to be Ancestry, with Genealogy.com a close  
second.
 
For researching biographies of living people, or the recently dead, one of  
the best paid subscriptions is NewspaperArchive.com
 
As Todd mentions, some of us already subscribe to various online  services.  
*IF* the WMF could negotiate a group rate, that could be a  win-win situation. 
 I would also come down on the side of "established  editors" versus 
"Admins".  We are trying to ease the situation for our  productive editors and 
so that 
would make more sense to provide a service like  this to those who are 
actually doing the editing.
 
Someone asked where is the list of the top editors by edit-count.  On  my 
talk-page here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wjhonson_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wjhonson) 
 
 I link to the statistics page that provides the list of the top  editors by 
edit-count which is here
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits
_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits) 
 
and was last update Nov 20
 
Will Johnson
 
 
 


**One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom0025)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[George Herbert]

We need to get someone who's more of a professional librarian to look at
this and comment.  What are typical university library online reference
access budgets like, for example?

Phoebe?


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, FT2  wrote:
> The following idea is based on a suggestion someone just came out with. A
> number of users were discussing BLPs and the point that verification of
> written sources and journals was not that easy in many cases.
>

http://markmail.org/message/57azrykd6dvp67rw#query:"A lot of people
don't have access to things like Pubmed and LexisNexis
and"+page:1+mid:hbbzieislunrk45t+state:results

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Todd Allen]

Actually, this is a brilliant idea, and one of the best ideas for
Foundation funding use I can think of. The exact logistics can be
worked out later (and I think we'd have to have some firmer numbers
from the publishers in terms of pricing before we could figure out
exactly how it would need to be done), but I certainly had an easier
time writing articles when I had access to university research tools,
and can't be the only one.

I personally would even be willing to donate to cover WMF's costs
against my access in this regard, provided they can negotiate
reasonable block purchase pricing. Individual subscriptions are
unfortunately rather priced out of the market.

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:41 PM, FT2  wrote:
> Start with one and then see how that goes. It can be fine tuned, then
> used as a case study for further sources who may otherwise have
> concerns.
>
> We have two ways to make it "not just anyone", both are equally
> malleable. The first is, set criteria based on edits, "level of
> trust", or FA/GA contributions. The other is we ask for a rate for "up
> to 5000 editors of our choice", which is probably similar size to a
> number of institutions or universities, and we then can fine tune
> internally how those are allocated. The latter would mean that we have
> a lot of flexibility - we can avoid giving access to some editors who
> meet the criteria but don't much need it, and give access to those who
> can make a good case for it.
>
> One option might be even, request access for up to 1000 users, and
> indicate a list of "criteria + fee/donation requested" (including
> "these are the kinds of editors who will get priority"). First 1000
> applications get access. If the demand is there, we can request access
> for a further 1000 users and repeat.
>
> Bear in mind we are not after permission to republish them. We just
> want access for selected users to read and verify the information, or
> publish a generalized summary. This would not compete, any more than a
> journal citation in a bibliography or academic paper would "compete".
>
> FT2
>
> On 12/21/08, David Goodman  wrote:
>> I did some preliminary inquires a year ago, with not very enthusiastic
>> publisher response, but could follow up now--I think we're much more
>> visible.
>>
>> Based on request I get to help out, and on observed editing and some
>> user pages, I don't think it's remotely true, even in many science
>> fields, that most of our editors have access to university libraries.
>> Nor do I think that most of our content editors are administrators;
>> conversely, of the 1100 active admins, perhaps half are active
>> editors.  Perhaps we should think on the basis of active editors over
>> say 500 mainspace edits. This should significantly reassure the
>> publishers. How many people is that?
>>
>> In my experience as an ejournal negotiator, starting from the first
>> days of ejournals. publishers are not very willing to reduce
>> significantly below published rate schedules, and we might do better
>> asking for it as a donation.  . But both could be tried. Most
>> publishers have flat rates,  in science averaging $1000 per journal,
>> much less in the humanities. --  but there are a great many titles.
>> some go by size--& for this we're unique in terms of subscriber base &
>> its hard to predict what they'd estimate.
>>
>> Let's take JSTOR--remember, its backfiles only, typically without the
>> most recent 5 yrs.  If one wants the most recent 5 yrs, one goes to
>> the publisher & pays by title.  Very very roughly, rates for the JStor
>> portion can be $500/yr for a small public library to  $50,000 for a
>> university,  depending of where they class the institution & how many
>> titles. If the foundation would like me to approach them, someone
>> should email me offline.
>>
>> In science, I think some of the scientific societies will donate & the
>> way to go is for some member to inquire Remember that all US NIH & UK
>> MRC papers will be available free from 08+ after a 6 month delay
>> through pubmedcentral.
>>
>> There are of course  great many other possibilities, but all the
>> relatively inexpensive ones involve backfiles only.
>>
>>
>> At the going rates, figure about $1000 per journal in science--less in
>> other subjects for academic journals. I doubt we'll get discounts, and
>> I think we'll do better to ask for it as a donation. I've made
>> preliminary inquiries in the past, and not gotten very far. But maybe
>> it is time to try gain.
>>
>> The   publisher I think this would really make sense for in terms of
>> things like BLP is the NYTimes blocked years, but essentially all
>> public libraries should have them.
>>
>>
>>  As for JSTOR, this is perhaps a possibility as a special case. I can
>> make the contact. T
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Alec Conroy  wrote:
>>> On 12/20/08, David Goodman  wrote:
 I  doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
  to re-sell their articles at anyth

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[FT2]

Start with one and then see how that goes. It can be fine tuned, then
used as a case study for further sources who may otherwise have
concerns.

We have two ways to make it "not just anyone", both are equally
malleable. The first is, set criteria based on edits, "level of
trust", or FA/GA contributions. The other is we ask for a rate for "up
to 5000 editors of our choice", which is probably similar size to a
number of institutions or universities, and we then can fine tune
internally how those are allocated. The latter would mean that we have
a lot of flexibility - we can avoid giving access to some editors who
meet the criteria but don't much need it, and give access to those who
can make a good case for it.

One option might be even, request access for up to 1000 users, and
indicate a list of "criteria + fee/donation requested" (including
"these are the kinds of editors who will get priority"). First 1000
applications get access. If the demand is there, we can request access
for a further 1000 users and repeat.

Bear in mind we are not after permission to republish them. We just
want access for selected users to read and verify the information, or
publish a generalized summary. This would not compete, any more than a
journal citation in a bibliography or academic paper would "compete".

FT2

On 12/21/08, David Goodman  wrote:
> I did some preliminary inquires a year ago, with not very enthusiastic
> publisher response, but could follow up now--I think we're much more
> visible.
>
> Based on request I get to help out, and on observed editing and some
> user pages, I don't think it's remotely true, even in many science
> fields, that most of our editors have access to university libraries.
> Nor do I think that most of our content editors are administrators;
> conversely, of the 1100 active admins, perhaps half are active
> editors.  Perhaps we should think on the basis of active editors over
> say 500 mainspace edits. This should significantly reassure the
> publishers. How many people is that?
>
> In my experience as an ejournal negotiator, starting from the first
> days of ejournals. publishers are not very willing to reduce
> significantly below published rate schedules, and we might do better
> asking for it as a donation.  . But both could be tried. Most
> publishers have flat rates,  in science averaging $1000 per journal,
> much less in the humanities. --  but there are a great many titles.
> some go by size--& for this we're unique in terms of subscriber base &
> its hard to predict what they'd estimate.
>
> Let's take JSTOR--remember, its backfiles only, typically without the
> most recent 5 yrs.  If one wants the most recent 5 yrs, one goes to
> the publisher & pays by title.  Very very roughly, rates for the JStor
> portion can be $500/yr for a small public library to  $50,000 for a
> university,  depending of where they class the institution & how many
> titles. If the foundation would like me to approach them, someone
> should email me offline.
>
> In science, I think some of the scientific societies will donate & the
> way to go is for some member to inquire Remember that all US NIH & UK
> MRC papers will be available free from 08+ after a 6 month delay
> through pubmedcentral.
>
> There are of course  great many other possibilities, but all the
> relatively inexpensive ones involve backfiles only.
>
>
> At the going rates, figure about $1000 per journal in science--less in
> other subjects for academic journals. I doubt we'll get discounts, and
> I think we'll do better to ask for it as a donation. I've made
> preliminary inquiries in the past, and not gotten very far. But maybe
> it is time to try gain.
>
> The   publisher I think this would really make sense for in terms of
> things like BLP is the NYTimes blocked years, but essentially all
> public libraries should have them.
>
>
>  As for JSTOR, this is perhaps a possibility as a special case. I can
> make the contact. T
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Alec Conroy  wrote:
>> On 12/20/08, David Goodman  wrote:
>>> I  doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
>>>  to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
>>>  which is often as high as $40 per article.   (that's what this amounts
>>>  to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a
>>>  Wikipedia account.
>>
>> Access to anyone with a wikipedia account would never fly-- that's
>> essentially asking them to offer it to anyone with internet access.
>>
>> But getting access to our admins,  our users who have acheived a
>> certain edit count, or have some other well-defined criteria wouldn't
>> be much different from a university library giving access to all
>> enrolled students.
>>
>> Also a plus-- Wikipedia's content editors are, I think, by a large,
>> usually in academia.  Our editors tend to be disproportionately
>> college-aged or college-affiliated.  That means that many or most of
>> the people we would be buyi

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Goodman]

I did some preliminary inquires a year ago, with not very enthusiastic
publisher response, but could follow up now--I think we're much more
visible.

Based on request I get to help out, and on observed editing and some
user pages, I don't think it's remotely true, even in many science
fields, that most of our editors have access to university libraries.
Nor do I think that most of our content editors are administrators;
conversely, of the 1100 active admins, perhaps half are active
editors.  Perhaps we should think on the basis of active editors over
say 500 mainspace edits. This should significantly reassure the
publishers. How many people is that?

In my experience as an ejournal negotiator, starting from the first
days of ejournals. publishers are not very willing to reduce
significantly below published rate schedules, and we might do better
asking for it as a donation.  . But both could be tried. Most
publishers have flat rates,  in science averaging $1000 per journal,
much less in the humanities. --  but there are a great many titles.
some go by size--& for this we're unique in terms of subscriber base &
its hard to predict what they'd estimate.

Let's take JSTOR--remember, its backfiles only, typically without the
most recent 5 yrs.  If one wants the most recent 5 yrs, one goes to
the publisher & pays by title.  Very very roughly, rates for the JStor
portion can be $500/yr for a small public library to  $50,000 for a
university,  depending of where they class the institution & how many
titles. If the foundation would like me to approach them, someone
should email me offline.

In science, I think some of the scientific societies will donate & the
way to go is for some member to inquire Remember that all US NIH & UK
MRC papers will be available free from 08+ after a 6 month delay
through pubmedcentral.

There are of course  great many other possibilities, but all the
relatively inexpensive ones involve backfiles only.


At the going rates, figure about $1000 per journal in science--less in
other subjects for academic journals. I doubt we'll get discounts, and
I think we'll do better to ask for it as a donation. I've made
preliminary inquiries in the past, and not gotten very far. But maybe
it is time to try gain.

The   publisher I think this would really make sense for in terms of
things like BLP is the NYTimes blocked years, but essentially all
public libraries should have them.


 As for JSTOR, this is perhaps a possibility as a special case. I can
make the contact. T

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Alec Conroy  wrote:
> On 12/20/08, David Goodman  wrote:
>> I  doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
>>  to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
>>  which is often as high as $40 per article.   (that's what this amounts
>>  to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a
>>  Wikipedia account.
>
> Access to anyone with a wikipedia account would never fly-- that's
> essentially asking them to offer it to anyone with internet access.
>
> But getting access to our admins,  our users who have acheived a
> certain edit count, or have some other well-defined criteria wouldn't
> be much different from a university library giving access to all
> enrolled students.
>
> Also a plus-- Wikipedia's content editors are, I think, by a large,
> usually in academia.  Our editors tend to be disproportionately
> college-aged or college-affiliated.  That means that many or most of
> the people we would be buying the service for already have it, and so
> would represent pure profit to JSTOR (or whomever).
>
> Alec
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Alec Conroy]

On 12/20/08, David Goodman  wrote:
> I  doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
>  to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
>  which is often as high as $40 per article.   (that's what this amounts
>  to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a
>  Wikipedia account.

Access to anyone with a wikipedia account would never fly-- that's
essentially asking them to offer it to anyone with internet access.

But getting access to our admins,  our users who have acheived a
certain edit count, or have some other well-defined criteria wouldn't
be much different from a university library giving access to all
enrolled students.

Also a plus-- Wikipedia's content editors are, I think, by a large,
usually in academia.  Our editors tend to be disproportionately
college-aged or college-affiliated.  That means that many or most of
the people we would be buying the service for already have it, and so
would represent pure profit to JSTOR (or whomever).

Alec

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[David Goodman]

I  doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation
to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
which is often as high as $40 per article.   (that's what this amounts
to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a
Wikipedia account.


On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM, Gwern Branwen  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, FT2  wrote:
>> The following idea is based on a suggestion someone just came out with. A
>> number of users were discussing BLPs and the point that verification of
>> written sources and journals was not that easy in many cases.
>>
>>
>>
>> Many colleges or libraries use a subscription and their members or even
>> members of the public can then read those references. I'm not an expert, but
>> the following idea came to mind as worthwhile asking for thoughts on, if it
>> has any merit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Suppose the Foundation subscribed to various key databases. A proxy (however
>> one does it), gets set up that people can log in to, and then read those
>> journals or databases. The Foundation sets a fee scale for access, in
>> whatever way works, and any person who wants to subscribe, can do so. In
>> some cases, subscription might be free. Anonymity, including anonymity of
>> any payment, is easy (see below)
>>
>>
>>
>> * General and society benefits -- spread of knowledge; user and third party
>> enjoyment at having access to information they might otherwise not have;
>> less widely used subscription-only databases may be made more accessible
>>
>>
>>
>> * Wikipedia quality benefits -- users can purchase easy access to reliable
>> sources that otherwise they may not conveniently have; users can verify
>> citations and references that they might otherwise not be able to; articles
>> will more regularly become exposed to updated research (if the idea takes
>> off).
>>
>>
>>
>> * Other project benefits and possible features -- Financial (steady income
>> stream from subscriptions); small trial ability; great scaleability if
>> successful; inherently fairly safe in an income/expenditure sense.
>>
>>
>>
>> Payment can readily be made anonymous (the means to pay via anything from
>> credit card to paypal to "internet gold" already exists) so that
>> pseudonymous users can participate equally, a login account is issued with
>> payment so no identification to WMF is needed, and given a login the login
>> can be used from home, school, mobile, or work.
>>
>>
>>
>> One novel example of pricing differentiality might include, a lower rate (or
>> free) for users who routinely add cited high quality content to the project,
>> or who use/have used the sources directly to benefit articles. Perhaps a
>> cheaper rate for users with at least one FA or two GAs, or a subjective
>> decision for the year, for users who can show good cause in their
>> contributions. Some ideas, but the principle is interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> If there are practical issues, so be it, but I don't see an obvious problem,
>> and it might be worth passing round for thoughts.
>>
>>
>>
>> FT2
>
> Another service the Foundation could subscribe to: the Internet
> Archive's on-demand-archiving service
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Internet_archive#Archive-It
> . We lose many links to linkrot, and those links are often references
> and in ever more instances, are unique. Many of them are already
> covered in the publicly accessible portions of IA, but even when they
> are, it is very rare for an editor to check.
>
> And the benefits of this service are very clear. Given that we're
> supposed to be friendly and have links with IA, perhaps WMF wouldn't
> even have to pay for it.
>
> - --
> gwern
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEAREKAAYFAklNhQoACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKqdgCfescrNXY3PQFtsOqpom4HAv1r
> fT8An3qwLU4pP2e3uv1PUjXPJHU0P5rF
> =qgPY
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Andrew Gray]

2008/12/20 Alec Conroy :

> I suspect, like insurance, the database people wouldn't play ball if
> we allowed an opt-in strategy, but what about buying institutional
> access for the community of admins + non-admins with rollback or some
> other bit.   Or, the community of people who have a FA or something.

Yeah. Individual opt-in isn't a good idea for the database providers;
they sell access for a reasonable sum per capita as a block grant, but
(somewhat opportunistically) will offer an individual subscription
rate at ten or a hundred times that.

For example, a university can subscribe to the online Oxford English
Dictionary for ~$0.25 per full-time student (with a minimum cost of
~$500/year); a single individual subscriber would be charged $300 for
the same level of access. Numbers vary immensely and are not usually
very easy to find publicly, so this may not reflect what people are
actually paying - but it's in the right ballpark.

That's three orders of magnitude, there! Anything that let us opt in
individuals for a nominal fee would pretty much be able to kill their
individual sales service stone dead...

It's certainly something that has promise, but it'd call for a clear
definition of quite what we're trying to achieve and a lot of very
careful negotiation with the suppliers by someone at WMF. The major
advantage, I suppose, is that having some kind of an access deal with
us is something they get to write nice press releases about :-)

A productive first step would be to have someone at WMF (any idea who
to suggest this to?) make inquiries with JSTOR and sound them out on
the issue; they are pretty good at working with users with weird
requirements, are themselves a fluffy hippy nonprofit body, and are
probably the people most likely to try to work with us.

(They also have one of the most useful resources we could look for, so win-win!)

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Gwern Branwen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 5:56 PM, FT2  wrote:
> The following idea is based on a suggestion someone just came out with. A
> number of users were discussing BLPs and the point that verification of
> written sources and journals was not that easy in many cases.
>
>
>
> Many colleges or libraries use a subscription and their members or even
> members of the public can then read those references. I'm not an expert, but
> the following idea came to mind as worthwhile asking for thoughts on, if it
> has any merit.
>
>
>
> Suppose the Foundation subscribed to various key databases. A proxy (however
> one does it), gets set up that people can log in to, and then read those
> journals or databases. The Foundation sets a fee scale for access, in
> whatever way works, and any person who wants to subscribe, can do so. In
> some cases, subscription might be free. Anonymity, including anonymity of
> any payment, is easy (see below)
>
>
>
> * General and society benefits -- spread of knowledge; user and third party
> enjoyment at having access to information they might otherwise not have;
> less widely used subscription-only databases may be made more accessible
>
>
>
> * Wikipedia quality benefits -- users can purchase easy access to reliable
> sources that otherwise they may not conveniently have; users can verify
> citations and references that they might otherwise not be able to; articles
> will more regularly become exposed to updated research (if the idea takes
> off).
>
>
>
> * Other project benefits and possible features -- Financial (steady income
> stream from subscriptions); small trial ability; great scaleability if
> successful; inherently fairly safe in an income/expenditure sense.
>
>
>
> Payment can readily be made anonymous (the means to pay via anything from
> credit card to paypal to "internet gold" already exists) so that
> pseudonymous users can participate equally, a login account is issued with
> payment so no identification to WMF is needed, and given a login the login
> can be used from home, school, mobile, or work.
>
>
>
> One novel example of pricing differentiality might include, a lower rate (or
> free) for users who routinely add cited high quality content to the project,
> or who use/have used the sources directly to benefit articles. Perhaps a
> cheaper rate for users with at least one FA or two GAs, or a subjective
> decision for the year, for users who can show good cause in their
> contributions. Some ideas, but the principle is interesting.
>
>
>
> If there are practical issues, so be it, but I don't see an obvious problem,
> and it might be worth passing round for thoughts.
>
>
>
> FT2

Another service the Foundation could subscribe to: the Internet
Archive's on-demand-archiving service
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Internet_archive#Archive-It
. We lose many links to linkrot, and those links are often references
and in ever more instances, are unique. Many of them are already
covered in the publicly accessible portions of IA, but even when they
are, it is very rare for an editor to check.

And the benefits of this service are very clear. Given that we're
supposed to be friendly and have links with IA, perhaps WMF wouldn't
even have to pay for it.

- --
gwern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREKAAYFAklNhQoACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oKqdgCfescrNXY3PQFtsOqpom4HAv1r
fT8An3qwLU4pP2e3uv1PUjXPJHU0P5rF
=qgPY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[K. Peachey]

Maybe this would be a great idea for a chapter fundraiser project(/s)?

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Michael Bimmler]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:28 AM, Alec Conroy  wrote:
> This would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.   We're at the point in a
> lot of articles now where access to scientific and historical
> peer-reviewed journals is an absolute prerequisite to intelligently
> improving articles.   Most of us are affiliated with institutions that
> have access to these sites, but many aren't, and I'm sure that impedes
> our growth to some extent.
>
> I suspect, like insurance, the database people wouldn't play ball if
> we allowed an opt-in strategy, but what about buying institutional
> access for the community of admins + non-admins with rollback or some
> other bit.   Or, the community of people who have a FA or something.
>

Yes, I think that should work. I mean, when the University Library of
X buys such a subscription, they also buy a licence for a more or less
defined set of users, viz. "All our students" or even just "everyone
who has a university network access".

So we should be fine there.


-- 
Michael Bimmler
mbimm...@gmail.com

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Re: [WikiEN-l] Subscription idea

[Alec Conroy]

This would be a wonderful, wonderful thing.   We're at the point in a
lot of articles now where access to scientific and historical
peer-reviewed journals is an absolute prerequisite to intelligently
improving articles.   Most of us are affiliated with institutions that
have access to these sites, but many aren't, and I'm sure that impedes
our growth to some extent.

I suspect, like insurance, the database people wouldn't play ball if
we allowed an opt-in strategy, but what about buying institutional
access for the community of admins + non-admins with rollback or some
other bit.   Or, the community of people who have a FA or something.

I have no idea what the foundation's budget looks like, but if  it has
some money to invest, depending on the price tag, it could be a
wonderful use of funds.

Alec

On 12/20/08, FT2  wrote:
> The following idea is based on a suggestion someone just came out with. A
>  number of users were discussing BLPs and the point that verification of
>  written sources and journals was not that easy in many cases.
>
>
>
>  Many colleges or libraries use a subscription and their members or even
>  members of the public can then read those references. I'm not an expert, but
>  the following idea came to mind as worthwhile asking for thoughts on, if it
>  has any merit.
>
>
>
>  Suppose the Foundation subscribed to various key databases. A proxy (however
>  one does it), gets set up that people can log in to, and then read those
>  journals or databases. The Foundation sets a fee scale for access, in
>  whatever way works, and any person who wants to subscribe, can do so. In
>  some cases, subscription might be free. Anonymity, including anonymity of
>  any payment, is easy (see below)
>
>
>
>  * General and society benefits -- spread of knowledge; user and third party
>  enjoyment at having access to information they might otherwise not have;
>  less widely used subscription-only databases may be made more accessible
>
>
>
>  * Wikipedia quality benefits -- users can purchase easy access to reliable
>  sources that otherwise they may not conveniently have; users can verify
>  citations and references that they might otherwise not be able to; articles
>  will more regularly become exposed to updated research (if the idea takes
>  off).
>
>
>
>  * Other project benefits and possible features -- Financial (steady income
>  stream from subscriptions); small trial ability; great scaleability if
>  successful; inherently fairly safe in an income/expenditure sense.
>
>
>
>  Payment can readily be made anonymous (the means to pay via anything from
>  credit card to paypal to "internet gold" already exists) so that
>  pseudonymous users can participate equally, a login account is issued with
>  payment so no identification to WMF is needed, and given a login the login
>  can be used from home, school, mobile, or work.
>
>
>
>  One novel example of pricing differentiality might include, a lower rate (or
>  free) for users who routinely add cited high quality content to the project,
>  or who use/have used the sources directly to benefit articles. Perhaps a
>  cheaper rate for users with at least one FA or two GAs, or a subjective
>  decision for the year, for users who can show good cause in their
>  contributions. Some ideas, but the principle is interesting.
>
>
>
>  If there are practical issues, so be it, but I don't see an obvious problem,
>  and it might be worth passing round for thoughts.
>
>
>
>
>  FT2
>  ___
>  WikiEN-l mailing list
>  WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>  https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l