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 th
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 cle
> 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 we
> 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 so
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
>
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.
Ju
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" wro
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no longer valid.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
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
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 shar
+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
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.
W
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 con
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
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 canno
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
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
"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
en
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 o
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, eith
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
o
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 intenti
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, Vituz
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.
--
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.
Vito
Il 14/02/2016 22:13, Robert Fernandez ha scritto:
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
Wikipedia editors
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
>
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 Ope
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 believ
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
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:
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-
31 matches
Mail list logo
