Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Alex Stinson]

Teemu,

As a followup:

We would love to be more aligned with Open Access publishers, but at this
point, we have yet to find a demonstrably *repeatable* and *scalable* model
of programming which we could promote to the entire movement and the Open
Access community. When OA publishers already set the standard for Open
knowledge, its less clear where to intervene (whereas, supporting GLAM,
EDU, STEM and TWL outreach are about unlocking hard to find or closed
access material for our community to take advantage of).

We do have a relationship with PLOS at WMF:

   - We have been including contacts within PLOS on a collaboration to
   improve the Wikimedia ecosystem for citations and research, including
   looking at structured data in Wikimedia citations (something we are
   beginning to explore with Wikimedia Research, WikiProject X, WikiProject
   Source Metadata, WMDE, CrossRef and others). You should hear more about
   this in the next 4-6 months, as it becomes actual collaboration among these
   groups.
   - We are also reaching out to PLOS to participate in Dark Traffic
   Research:
   https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy and
   they are further connected to us via our relationship with CrossRef.
   - We have had several calls with the PLOS partnerships team as The
   Wikipedia Library, and have seen a bit of stalled trying to figure out how
   both our community and theirs could benefit from a partnership more
   extensive than a WIR or volunteer led content drive, programatically -- and
   those kinds of individual leadership roles are outside what we develop at
   the WMF (see our criteria for new projects in Program Capacity and
   Learning: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_Capacity_and_Learning)
   .

So the question is: what are the best ways to collaborate with Open Access
publishers? And who can lead in these initiatives? We would be happy to
mentor any volunteers or affiliates who want to develop these program
models on behalf of the movement.

If you have ideas, we would encourage sharing them with WikiProject Open
Access (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access),
or on IdeaLab (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab).

Cheers,

Alex Stinson



> > On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> > partnering with PLoS?
>
> I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that
> is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
>
> I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because
> they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as
> we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their
> financial situation).
>
> - Teemu
> --
> Teemu Leinonen
> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> +358 50 351 6796
> Media Lab
> http://mlab.uiah.fi
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture
> --
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Pete Forsyth]

These seem like reasonable ideas, Teemu, and I don't in any way oppose
them. It sounds, however, like they would go through different channels at
WMF (such as the grants programs, and/or business partnerships) than the
Elsevier and JSTOR programs did. Nothing wrong with that, but I wanted to
be clear what it is we're talking about.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 15, 2016 11:08 AM, "Leinonen Teemu"  wrote:

> > On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> > partnering with PLoS?
>
> I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that
> is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
>
> I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because
> they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as
> we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their
> financial situation).
>
> - Teemu
> --
> Teemu Leinonen
> http://teemuleinonen.fi
> +358 50 351 6796
> Media Lab
> http://mlab.uiah.fi
> Aalto University
> School of Arts, Design and Architecture
> --
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Michael Peel]

> On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:08, Leinonen Teemu  wrote:
> 
>> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
>> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
>> partnering with PLoS?
> 
> I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is 
> not so well known as the Wikipedia. 
> 
> I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because 
> they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we 
> have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial 
> situation). 

PLoS's 2014 income was $48.5 million:
https://www.plos.org/about/financials/
I'm not sure that they're short of financial support...

Thanks,
Mike
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Leinonen Teemu]

> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:
> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> partnering with PLoS?

I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is 
not so well known as the Wikipedia. 

I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because they 
are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we have 
(and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial 
situation). 

- Teemu 
--
Teemu Leinonen
http://teemuleinonen.fi
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
Aalto University 
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
--

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[geni]

On 15 February 2016 at 16:07, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Teemu,
> These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are
> about giving volunteers access to closed sources.
>
> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
> partnering with PLoS?
> Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]


Probably none. DOAJ on the other hand. I'm less convinced of DOAJ's
financial soundness and its loss would be unfortunate. I've lost track of
the current PR line over whatever we are currently calling the knowledge
engine but if they are still going for the searching for reliable
information line DOAJ would be an obvious place to deploy it (well mostly.
This got into their database some how
https://doaj.org/article/ebed893bfc3748d58695b2851c8270e9 ).



-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Leila Zia]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

>
> As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
> policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
> higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
> volunteer good will.


Just want to point out that the WMF has an Open Access policy
. This policy does
not immediately impact the current discussion since it's focused on
where/how research supported by the Foundation should be published, but
it's a strong step in the right direction.​


> I personally think that we are making a big mistake
> thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
>

​You are not alone. We live in an ecosystem and our long term success
depends on the success of others in this ecosystem, such as the OA
movement.

Leila

--
​​Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
​


>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> > from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> > Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> > paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> > having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have
> it,
> > at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> > can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
> make
> > it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
> >
> > If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
> available,
> > our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> > to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
> system
> > is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple
> ways.
> > Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> > advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
> >  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> > what will be best for the encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Shani,
> > >
> > > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
> last
> > > year and directly addresses this issue:
> > >
> > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > >
> > > ~ Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> > on
> > > > the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > > >
> > > > Shani.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > > (from
> > > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> > posts
> > > > and
> > > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > > (which
> > > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > > >
> > > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > > been
> > > > a
> > > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> > and
> > > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > > (entities
> > > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > > this
> > > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
> that
> > > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> > overturn
> > > > an
> > > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > > volunteers
> > > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract:
> those
> > > who
> > > > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
> > and
> > > > are
> > > > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked
> in
> > > > with
> > > > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > > > >
> > > > > -Pete
> > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
> relation
> > > with
> > > > > > them."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of
> many,
> > > > > > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Pete Forsyth]

Teemu,
These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are
about giving volunteers access to closed sources.

Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from
partnering with PLoS?
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Feb 15, 2016 7:58 AM, "Leinonen Teemu"  wrote:

> Hi Alex and all,
>
> I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
>
> https://www.plos.org
>
> - Teemu
>
> > On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
> > research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe
> that
> > our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
> > or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
> > open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
> > links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our
> position.
> >
> > As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80
> accounts
> > so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
> > over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
> >
> > These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and
> cultivate,
> > because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
> > volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their
> business
> > practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
> > (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
> > boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
> > volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as
> long
> > as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
> > other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks
> at
> > least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
> > projects.
> >
> > However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
> > access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
> > industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going
> to
> > be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
> > traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
> > referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
> > industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be
> able
> > to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
> > allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
> >
> > As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
> > perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would
> be
> > happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our
> research
> > processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
> > institutions that work within the existing system to help create
> long-term
> > stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
> > libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
> > supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
> > open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
> > months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
> > change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to
> figure
> > out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
> > academic work.[4]
> >
> > As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
> > Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
> > through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
> > promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Alex Stinson
> > Project Manager
> > The Wikipedia Library
> >
> >
> > [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
> > [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
> > [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing.
> For
> > example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
> > instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
> > maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
> > available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
> > fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
> > output of those academics:
> >
> http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf
> > . Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who
> > worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open
> > access journals undermined his copyright and the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem with Elsevier is that it requires a project for people to gain
access. With PLOS we do not need to partner because everybody can have all
the access that they need.

The biggest problem that I see with many sources is that many of them are
no longer valid. They point they make has been refuted and sometimes even
worse it has been proven a fraud. That is the bigger problem with closed
source. You have to pay to read what it says and only then you may realise
that it is no good. In the mean time the puffery goes on.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 February 2016 at 16:57, Leinonen Teemu 
wrote:

> Hi Alex and all,
>
> I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
>
> https://www.plos.org
>
> - Teemu
>
> > On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
> > research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe
> that
> > our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
> > or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
> > open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
> > links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our
> position.
> >
> > As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80
> accounts
> > so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
> > over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
> >
> > These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and
> cultivate,
> > because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
> > volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their
> business
> > practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
> > (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
> > boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
> > volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as
> long
> > as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
> > other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks
> at
> > least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
> > projects.
> >
> > However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
> > access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
> > industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going
> to
> > be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
> > traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
> > referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
> > industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be
> able
> > to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
> > allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
> >
> > As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
> > perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would
> be
> > happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our
> research
> > processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
> > institutions that work within the existing system to help create
> long-term
> > stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
> > libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
> > supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
> > open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
> > months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
> > change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to
> figure
> > out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
> > academic work.[4]
> >
> > As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
> > Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
> > through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
> > promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Alex Stinson
> > Project Manager
> > The Wikipedia Library
> >
> >
> > [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
> > [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
> > [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing.
> For
> > example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
> > instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
> > maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
> > available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
> > fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
> > output of those academics:
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Leinonen Teemu]

Hi Alex and all, 

I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS? 

https://www.plos.org 

- Teemu

> On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson  wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
> research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe that
> our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
> or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
> open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
> links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our position.
> 
> As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80 accounts
> so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
> over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
> 
> These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and cultivate,
> because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
> volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their business
> practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
> (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
> boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
> volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as long
> as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
> other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks at
> least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
> projects.
> 
> However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
> access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
> industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going to
> be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
> traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
> referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
> industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be able
> to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
> allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
> 
> As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
> perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would be
> happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our research
> processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
> institutions that work within the existing system to help create long-term
> stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
> libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
> supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
> open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
> months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
> change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to figure
> out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
> academic work.[4]
> 
> As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
> Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
> through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
> promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alex Stinson
> Project Manager
> The Wikipedia Library
> 
> 
> [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
> [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
> [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing. For
> example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
> instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
> maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
> available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
> fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
> output of those academics:
> http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf
> . Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who
> worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open
> access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his
> publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from
> making Open Access, as a long-term solution for academic publishing.
> 
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Shani  wrote:
> 
>> Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
>> the issue.
>> 
>> Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
>> 
>> Shani.
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> As the panel moderator, I felt there 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Alex Stinson]

Hi all,

As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and
research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe that
our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open,
or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible.  We share the
open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two
links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our position.

As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80 accounts
so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to
over 500 accounts via JSTOR.

These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and cultivate,
because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our
volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their business
practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons
(editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in
boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that
volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as long
as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our
other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks at
least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our
projects.

However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just
access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing
industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going to
be part of research into how our https change last June created dark
traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to
referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing
industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be able
to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library
allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.

As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's
perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would be
happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our research
processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established
institutions that work within the existing system to help create long-term
stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with
libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and
supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the
open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few
months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for
change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to figure
out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing
academic work.[4]

As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia
Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued
through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to
promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.

Cheers,

Alex Stinson
Project Manager
The Wikipedia Library


[1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4
[3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy
[4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing. For
example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for
instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and
maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily
available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't
fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the
output of those academics:
http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf
. Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who
worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open
access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his
publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from
making Open Access, as a long-term solution for academic publishing.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Shani  wrote:

> Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
> the issue.
>
> Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
>
> Shani.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> wrote:
>
>> As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from
>> the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts
>> and
>> discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which
>> is certainly an important piece.
>>
>> A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have been a
>> good one, there may also have been better ways to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Àlex Hinojo]

+1 to Aubrey's words

2016-02-15 7:59 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni :

> As much as I love Jake and Alex's work,
> and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge
> that
> "playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything.
> Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they
> play along, keeping the system alive and well.
>
> Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly
> that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with
> a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also
> that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.
>
> As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
> policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
> higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
> volunteer good will. I personally think that we are making a big mistake
> thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
>
> Aubrey
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman  wrote:
>
> > We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> > from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> > Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> > paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> > having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have
> it,
> > at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> > can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
> make
> > it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
> >
> > If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
> available,
> > our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> > to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
> system
> > is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple
> ways.
> > Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> > advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
> >  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> > what will be best for the encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
> keegan.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Shani,
> > >
> > > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
> last
> > > year and directly addresses this issue:
> > >
> > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> > >
> > > ~ Keegan
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> > on
> > > > the issue.
> > > >
> > > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > > >
> > > > Shani.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > > (from
> > > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> > posts
> > > > and
> > > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > > (which
> > > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > > >
> > > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > > been
> > > > a
> > > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> > and
> > > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > > (entities
> > > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > > this
> > > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
> that
> > > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> > overturn
> > > > an
> > > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > > volunteers
> > > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract:
> those
> > > who
> > > > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
> > and
> > > > are
> > > > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked
> in
> > > > with
> > > > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > > > >
> > > > > -Pete
> > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
> relation
> > > with
> > > > > > them."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of
> many,
> > > > > > including myself, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Andrea Zanni]

As much as I love Jake and Alex's work,
and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge
that
"playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything.
Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they
play along, keeping the system alive and well.

Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly
that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with
a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also
that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.

As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
volunteer good will. I personally think that we are making a big mistake
thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.

Aubrey




On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have it,
> at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus make
> it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
>
> If all we did was re-package information that was already freely available,
> our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this system
> is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple ways.
> Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
>  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> what will be best for the encyclopedia.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> > Shani,
> >
> > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
> > year and directly addresses this issue:
> >
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> >
> > ~ Keegan
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
> >
> > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> on
> > > the issue.
> > >
> > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > >
> > > Shani.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > (from
> > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> posts
> > > and
> > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > (which
> > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > >
> > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > been
> > > a
> > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> and
> > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > (entities
> > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > this
> > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
> > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> overturn
> > > an
> > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > volunteers
> > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those
> > who
> > > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
> and
> > > are
> > > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in
> > > with
> > > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > > >
> > > > -Pete
> > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
> > with
> > > > > them."
> > > > >
> > > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> > > > > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be
> to
> > > the
> > > > > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to
> > improve
> > > > the
> > > > > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by
> > withdrawing
> > > > > those resources.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[David Goodman]

We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have it,
at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus make
it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.

If all we did was re-package information that was already freely available,
our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this system
is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple ways.
Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
 writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
what will be best for the encyclopedia.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> Shani,
>
> This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
> year and directly addresses this issue:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
>
> ~ Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
>
> > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
> > the issue.
> >
> > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> >
> > Shani.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> (from
> > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts
> > and
> > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > (which
> > > is certainly an important piece.
> > >
> > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> been
> > a
> > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and
> > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > (entities
> > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> this
> > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
> > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > >
> > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn
> > an
> > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > volunteers
> > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those
> who
> > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and
> > are
> > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in
> > with
> > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
> with
> > > > them."
> > > >
> > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> > > > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to
> > the
> > > > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to
> improve
> > > the
> > > > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by
> withdrawing
> > > > those resources.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should
> > > not.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Gerard,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
> > with
> > > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Milos
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Yes it is intentionally. There is enough shit going on and we need not pile
more on at this time. So move on.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 14 February 2016 at 23:01, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Shani]

Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
the issue.

Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.

Shani.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from
> the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts and
> discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which
> is certainly an important piece.
>
> A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have been a
> good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and
> specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language (entities
> like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe this
> was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
> future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
>
> I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn an
> existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia volunteers
> would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those who
> have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and are
> presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in with
> them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> > them."
> >
> > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
> > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve
> the
> > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
> > those resources.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should
> not.
> > > The
> > > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > > >
> > > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> > >
> > > Dear Gerard,
> > >
> > > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> > >
> > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Pete Forsyth]

As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from
the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts and
discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which
is certainly an important piece.

A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have been a
good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and
specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language (entities
like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe this
was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.

I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn an
existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia volunteers
would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those who
have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and are
presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in with
them, or looked at their work, Milos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them."
>
> This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
> encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve the
> encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
> those resources.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> > The
> > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > >
> > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> >
> > Dear Gerard,
> >
> > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> >
> > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> > them.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Milos
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Robert Fernandez]

"No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
them."

This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve the
encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
those resources.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
> ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
> editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
> overwhelming consensus.
>
> I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.

Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
and Wikimedia movement.

Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.

Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.

Until few months ago, connection with Elsevier could have been
tolerated as edgy, but useful. However, we are now in completely
different situation. I hear *our* friends are under high pressure
because of this and I just hope all of them are more emotionally tough
than Aaron was.

Now, hypocritical people all over Wikimedia movement think it's fine
to tolerate such connection. Because it doesn't hurt us and they are
giving us cookies. It hurts just people belonging to our wider
movement, whom we accidentally know. Why should we care about them?

Besides being legally obligated or having overwhelming consensus, I
suppose we have some values, some moral obligations and backbone.

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk  
> wrote:
>> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
>> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
>> ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
>> editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
>> overwhelming consensus.
>>
>> I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
>
> Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
> consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
> litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
> and Wikimedia movement.
>
> Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
> was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
>
> Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
> it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.

Actually, they did...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:JSTOR=485563919

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Milos Rancic]

Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If
so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub,
LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].

[1] 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Andrea Zanni]

As much as I'd **love** to see that,
I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.

Aubrey

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If
> so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub,
> LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].
>
> [1]
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
> As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable
> BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.

There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
projects.


-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Robert Fernandez]

The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
 (Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial).
I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
abandon this arrangement.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni 
> wrote:
> > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> despicable
> > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
>
> There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> projects.
>
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Pete Forsyth]

Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
proprietary sources of information:
http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/

On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
Access publishing advocates.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
(I convened and moderated the panel)

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
>  (Here's my take on that debate:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> ).
> I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> abandon this arrangement.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni 
> > wrote:
> > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > despicable
> > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> >
> > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > projects.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Milos
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Robert Fernandez]

I watched this remotely, good stuff.  Everyone seemed to be in basic
agreement on the issues.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
> the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
> proprietary sources of information:
> http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/
>
> On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
> Access publishing advocates.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> (I convened and moderated the panel)
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> > Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
> >  (Here's my take on that debate:
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> > ).
> > I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> > abandon this arrangement.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <
> zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > > despicable
> > > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> > >
> > > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > > projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not. The
WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.

No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 14 February 2016 at 22:52, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu  wrote:
> > Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them
> into
> > the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed
> > sources.
>
> Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's
> not valid excuse.
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Lodewijk]

Hi Milos,

that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
overwhelming consensus.

I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not. The
> WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
>
> No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.

Dear Gerard,

You are again ignoring the point intentionally.

No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with them.

Sincerely,
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

[Milos Rancic]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu  wrote:
> Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them into
> the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed
> sources.

Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's
not valid excuse.

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,