--- On Tue, Mar 8, 2011, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote:
> > From: Fred Bauder
> > Fred Bauder
> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
> > databases
> > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit
> > into our
> > budget.
>
Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
Approaching the problem from both sides seems useful, however,
especially for historical reference works like Wikipedia and
Wikibooks. We absolutely do want t
: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks on
> Wikimedia's fundraiser)
>
> Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>
> Approaching the problem from bot
Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
> Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
must be the quality of content, not the li
> In general, access to academic journals is extremely expensive and
> usually only possible for those affiliated with universities.
>
> Melissa
ProQuest can be purchased by corporations. The Wikimedia Foundation is a
corporation. Typically a University will give their students access. We
could g
2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn :
>
>
> Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
>> Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
>> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>
> Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
> must be
2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn
>
>
> Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
> > Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> > cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>
> Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
> must
2011/3/8 Tomasz Ganicz
> 2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn :
> >
> >
> > Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
> >> Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> >> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
> >
> > Which is certainly a rather bad idea b
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn :
>>
>>
>> Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
>>> Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
>>> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>>
>> Which is certai
Am 08.03.11 21:32, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
> BTW, do we (Wikimedia communtiy) have good and enstablished contacts with
> the open access community?
AFAIK, not on an official level. However, many wikipedians who are
scientists will certainly prefer to publish open access, and those who
are librar
Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are hundred
> thousands, if not millions).
That's
>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are
> hundred
> thousands, if not millions).
Limited to editors with 20,000 edits or more?
Y
>
> We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
> including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :) This is
> also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
> you have in mind?
>
> I was just waiting the librarians to weigh in :-)
I'm really no
As far as academic journals go most people have some access and don't know
it. Most public libraries subscribe to one or more services, and a library
card is all they need for that access.
Any wmf sponsored access plan needs to keep this in mind and encourage
editors to use access they already hav
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>>
>> We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
>> including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :) This is
>> also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
>> you have in mind?
>>
>> I w
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
>> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are
>> hundred
>> thousands, if not mi
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 21:50, Juergen Fenn wrote:
>
>
> Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
>
>>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
>> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potentia
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, THURNER rupert
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 21:50, Juergen Fenn wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
>>
AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I
On Mar 8, 2011, "Andrea Zanni" wrote:
> > We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
> > including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :) This is
> > also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
> > you have in mind?
> >
> > I was just wa
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Melissa Hagemann wrote:
> ..
> It would be wonderful if we could find a way for the WMF and OA
> communities to more closely collaborate. Aubrey is right in that to a
> large extent, OA is not well known outside the library community. Given
> the reach of WMF, there
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, George Herbert wrote:
> From: George Herbert
> We should have no illusion that the WMF or open content
> movement will
> zero out the production of copyrighted and
> not-freely-licensed content
> - most authors of books, most movie studios, most musicians
> depend on
> revenue
On 8 March 2011 21:50, Melissa Hagemann wrote:
> It would be wonderful if we could find a way for the WMF and OA
> communities to more closely collaborate. Aubrey is right in that to a
> large extent, OA is not well known outside the library community.
Big time. They're a natural fit for what w
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, John Vandenberg wrote:
> > And if there is interest in advocating on this issue, SPARC
developed
> > the Alliance for Taxpayer Access
> > (http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/index.shtml) which represents
> > universities, libraries, patient advocacy groups, and physicians
w
I posted the two links in the pub of the dutch wiki, and 2 reactions are
worth mentioning.
One volunteer offered to look up scientific articles, as a student he has
free access to many science publishers through his university library. I had
more such offers in the past, and it may be worth to hav
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Of course we would expect that providers and universities will only be able
> to provide a limited number of users with access. But access rights could be
> awarded on the basis of merit, say, to users who have written at least one
> Featured
> Probably the biggest victory to date for the OA movement was a mandate
> adopted by the U.S. NIH which stipulates that all the research funded by
> the NIH (which amounts to approximately $29 billion annually) is now
> made freely available through PubMed Central
> (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/)
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Of course we would expect that providers and universities will only be
>> able
>> to provide a limited number of users with access. But access rights
>> could be
>> awarded on the basis of merit, say, to users who have written at least
>> o
--- On Wed, 9/3/11, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
> From: Stephanie Daugherty
> I object to this strongly. The FA, and DYK processes are
> absolutely
> useless as a measure of an editor's worth to the project.
> There's
> plenty of wikignomes and other mostly unrecognized editors
> that will
> be a
Am 08.03.11 22:14, schrieb Stephanie Daugherty:
> As far as academic journals go most people have some access and don't know
> it. Most public libraries subscribe to one or more services, and a library
> card is all they need for that access.
>
> Any wmf sponsored access plan needs to keep this
Hi!
I agree with Melissa in promoting the use of open access journals. Plus,
there is also the possibility to create solidarity for access between
academics. In the sense that, if my University does not have access to a
paper I need to complete an article, but another academic in Boston does, to
I've been involved with open access journals as a professional
activity from the start of the movement, long before I joined
Wikipedia. There has been only limited success. Though there are
almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them are either very
small or very unimportant, and in a
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Stephanie Daugherty
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > Of course we would expect that providers and universities will only be
> able
> > to provide a limited number of users with access. But access rights could
> be
> > awarded on th
By the way, I did check with one of the schools I attended, Sturm College
of Law, and found their access policy for alumni is quite liberal. I'm
too far away to check books out, but it looks like I can do quite a lot
on-line; probably quite a bit more than I have to time to use.
Their policy is so
--- On Tue, 15/3/11, David Goodman wrote:
> From: David Goodman
> I've been involved with open
> access journals as a professional
> activity from the start of the movement, long before I
> joined
> Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.
> Though there are
> almost ten thousand open
2011/3/15 Andreas Kolbe
> > I've been involved with open
> > access journals as a professional
> > activity from the start of the movement, long before I
> > joined Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.
> > Though there are almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them
> are
>
>> > Though there are almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of
them
>> are
>> > either very small or very unimportant, and in almost all fields
>> > of study, none or almost none of the important journals are open
>> > access:
>>
>> This is my experience too; thanks for pointing it out.
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of contacting
> universities and content database providers and inviting them to support
> Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the
> benefit -- to them
In connection with the Credo subscriptions Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation created the mailing list
Wikimediareference-l list run by erik at wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediareference-l
It has a little bit of discussion from March to July, 201
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>> Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of
>>> contacting universities and content database providers and inviting them to
>>> support Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with
>>> the
>>> ben
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of
contacting universities and content database providers and inviting them to
support Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with
the
>>
Universities can't do this, generally. All contracts I have ever seen
limit the off-campus access to people connected with the university. A
few publishers even limit the on-campus access similarly, but most
publishers explicitly permit it.
But many universities do even worse than the contracts s
2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
> Speaking of the CREDO accounts, several people have asked that their
> accounts be reassigned, but they don't know how to do it. Could Erik
> advise? See here --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#I_gave_up_my_account_in_June
As per my earlier mes
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 15:13, Erik Moeller wrote:
=> Credo has generously offered a large number of additional accounts (up
> to 400 additional ones). The process that I used for the first batch
> was pretty clunky and time-consuming, so I've been using this as an
> opportunity to look into bette
On 15 March 2011 21:13, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Is anyone volunteering to organize the process for giving away these
> accounts? The September discussion stalled in lack of consensus about
> the parameters, but nobody actually stepped up to take this forward.
> Again, I can't spend a huge amount of
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
>> Speaking of the CREDO accounts, several people have asked that their
>> accounts be reassigned, but they don't know how to do it. Could Erik
>> advise? See here --
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:18 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> 2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
>>> Speaking of the CREDO accounts, several people have asked that their
>>> accounts be reassigned, but they don't know how to do it. Could Erik
>>> advise? Se
I agree with that about FA/GA, possibly because I avoid that place
myself, but for negotiating with publishers it would help to have a
standard of some sort, in addition to a maximum number, so they would
know they're not opening it up to the world in general, which is a
matter of some concern to
As I stated on the talk page - I agree with the idea of some standard
for reference-useful content contribution, and that FA/GA work would
be one aspect of that. But I'd like that to be a category with one
option of satisfying it being GA/FA work, rather than that being the
only way to fulfil it.
I can't speak for all my colleagues in the oa movement, as they
disagree on almost every possible detail, and on almost every
consideration of strategy, but I think most people there would regard
"taxpayer access" both as a useful political slogan, and as a very
productive strategy—a manner of proc
2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
> I'd be willing to help organize the names. It's just a question of
> coming up with some sensible criteria, so I'll restart the discussion
> about that on the previous talk page.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts
Thanks Sarah. It looks like the d
I agree with Aubrey, Melissa, SJ etc.
We should indeed promote OA journals and thesis (give a look at
http://www.dart-europe.eu : almost 200.000 full text OA from 324
universities and 19 countries automatically collected and searchable
thanks to the magics of OA and OAI-PMH), and encourage OA pu
2011/3/16 Erik Moeller :
> 2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
>> I'd be willing to help organize the names. It's just a question of
>> coming up with some sensible criteria, so I'll restart the discussion
>> about that on the previous talk page.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts
>
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:10, George Herbert wrote:
> I object to the GA/FA/etc requirement. There are a lot of content
> editors out there who won't go near the FA mafia.
>
> I use that term carefully, and hopefully without inciting a great
> backlash. The people involved in the GA/FA etc proc
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 20:15, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
>> I'd be willing to help organize the names. It's just a question of
>> coming up with some sensible criteria, so I'll restart the discussion
>> about that on the previous talk page.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe
>> I object to the GA/FA/etc requirement. There are a lot of content
>> editors out there who won't go near the FA mafia.
>>
>> I use that term carefully, and hopefully without inciting a great
>> backlash. The people involved in the GA/FA etc process are welcome as
>> far as I am concerned to k
55 matches
Mail list logo