On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are leaving out). That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be something that any major university is willing to do? Something that DGG can perhaps comment on. Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

I agree with Phoebe that in general no university will be able to do that. Let me add some details, since licensing these materials has for years been my professional specialty--ever since first such electronic journals have been available. . The normal licensing arrangement with a university for most publisher is that permission is granted for use of the material for any actual current member of the university, and, often, for anyone with permission to use the university library who is actually present in the library. This is typically enforced by a combination of i.p. -based access fir the university's domain, supplemented with access through a proxy server for those physically outside the domain--the access to the proxy server is normally controlled by the university identification system. The contract is usually quite specific about who will count as a member of the university--normally current full or part time students, staff, and faculty. The university undertakes to enforce access via the server appropriately, and all universities take this quite seriously. It is also usually possible to obtain a certain number of individual passwords for designated individuals, with the university guaranteeing their proper distribution, as a means of bypassing the proxy server. Neither the publishers nor the universities usually like this, because of the nuisance of administration. Some publishers insist on further restrictions--typically not permitting what is called walk-in access to those who may have access to the library, but are not university members. some universities also for reasons of their own prefer not to give such people access even when the publisher permits it. Additional restrictions are sometimes present, especially for the most expensive material, such as patent of chemical databases: a limit to the number of simultaneous users, an absolute restriction to campus use only, a further absolute restriction to use within the library building only, or even a restriction of the use at a limited number of designated workstations, or even a single workstation. Typically, the cheaper the material ,the more flexible the arrangements. Payment is normally based upon one of three mechanisms: 1/ total head count numbers of students plus faculty on a per-person basis, 2/ bands of large/medium/small university size-- generally also taking into consideration whether it is a research university likely to make extensive use, or just an undergraduate college, and 3/ sometimes for the less expensive titles, a flat rate per journal. I cannot imagine that most publishers will be willing to permit off-campus access from members of the public, even were the university willing to pay for it at an increased price. I won't say it is absolutely impossible, but I have negotiated many contracts and never even attempted such a provision. Similarly, I cannot imagine a reputable university prepared to try to cheat or equivocate on such provisions. I would certainly have refused to assist any such request. although there is a certain degree of adversary relationship with publishers as in any situation involving vendors and purchasers, there is also reliance upon good fait of the parties involved. The contracts usually require the university to assist in the investigation of breeches of the contract (these attempts are not uncommon--people will try to download extremely large bodies of material, sometimes for personal use, sometimes for the purpose of small or even large scale illicit redistribution) -- and the universities cooperate. (The contracts usually provide for cancellation of service if they do not so cooperate, but such cooperation is also seen as reasonable. There have been a few very large scale breeches over the years. We do not talk much about the details.) There is a difference between resenting the profits of commercial publishers, and being willing to steal their property. WPedians with their emphasis on copyright observance should well understand this. . Public libraries are typically changed for remote access per head count of the population served, at a reduced rate from that for universities, assuming a much less intensive use. Control is usually through a proxy server with access through the library card identification number. The most expensive materials will not be licensed on this basis to public libraries, but only for library use only, and normally at a defined number of terminals or for a single simultaneous user at at time . The only practical route will be a declared arrangement, either donated or paid for, for a limited number os users and a limited amount of material. This is not impossible, especially if the WMF is willing to operate the necessary proxy server and control the access to it. If the foundation proposes to try, I know the people to speak to, and will serve as a contact. But i certainly will do so only openly and in a commercially respectable manner. the only way of doing this inexpensively will be as a donation, and the only way of asking for a donation will be to make our sense of responsibility and our willingness to observe limits absolutely clear. There is an alternate pathway. WPedians should find out what databases their local public library already subscribes to,and use them. They should then urge their public libraries to subscribe to what they need. The subscription rates for public libraries for limited subsets of JSTOR are not very high, but few public libraries subscribe, as they do not see a demand. Any library would rather spend its money on what its patrons will actually use, and ask for. On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:27 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

Gregory Maxwell wrote: It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access. We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors. Ec

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: RSOL = Royal Society Online? Carcharoth

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

Hah, the eggnog might be part of the problem. ;) On 12/26/08, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Sent from my mobile device

On 12/27/08, Sage Ross <ragesoss+wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote: You speak wisdom. This is the "real" objection to the idea of a WMF subscription to JSTOR. Real as in, very persuasive and if there's a reason why it won't happen, you hit the nail on the head. Right now, I think for almost all of us in this thread, we have no idea what the WMF bankbook looks like, and we also have no clue what JSTOR's price would look like. So, those are two pretty huge unknowns in the equation. If JSTOR's price is a sufficiently small fraction of the WMF budget, go for it. If JSTOR's price would be a substantial chunk of the budget, forget it. -- Although, if it turns out to be prohibitively expensive, the foundation, it's pr-peeps, and jimbo could still use the JSTOR access as a way to drum up funds. Any time someone complains about Wikipedia's accuracy, we could turn that around and say: "Hey, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain, but if you think Wikipedia isn't up to snuff compared with other publications, that's because other publications have funds and we don't. Rather than complain that our quality is lacking, help us fix it by helping us get access to JSTOR and places like it." A glorified version of [[WP:SOFIXIT]]. Just anecdotally, I've met lots of people in academia who have seen cases where arguments like that are miraculously transformed into sudden funding opportunities-- whenever someone criticizes you, tell them what you need to do the job better, and ask them for help. Alec

The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last posts and your responses. Providing a direct link is a bit too much work this far from my computers. I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred, and ready for whomever would accept them. Have for years. But it seems people are too busy bickering than to bother to take them. I come back to this list after being absent while on the road for the last week to find myself being, effectively, a liar and and obstructionist because I expected people to be able to perform a one second search to find one of hundreds of thousands of PD-claimed-copyright documents in jstor; or because I think it would be prudent to work with universitiy libraries first before asking the wmf to spend hundreds of thousands of donor money. If that's how thing are going to be run here- then so be it- No need to expend any more of my effort. Enjoy. On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:

Nathan wrote: You raise an important point about the Foundation being the one to seek access. The usefulness would be across the projects, not just for English Wikipedia. In Wikisource no more than a dozen would likely need access at any given time. Understandably, we wouldn't be duplicating the protected material that they host, but more than once I have run into their brick wall when I was only trying to find some basic information about an author hosted by Wikisource. Ec