My thoughts are as follows: These "paywall" resources only make accessible
information that has already been published, and which editors would
otherwise have to purchase or access through other financially-restrictive
means. But the same is true of our readers, who would have to check the
references in exactly the same way. Therefore, we have not changed the
effect on the reader. Indeed, the key reason that we include the
information that the reference material was extracted through these various
web resources is to appropriately identify that there may be variations
from the original reference source. (Highbeam's scans sometimes come out a
bit funny, particularly the symbols, for example.)
Risker/Anne
On 11 August 2012 17:56, Michael Peel <michael.peel(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm still trying to figure out whether these partnerships are a good or
bad thing for Wikimedia.
Yes, it's good/great that Wikimedia volunteers are able to access these
resources so that they can develop Wikipedia articles, and hence increasing
the amount of knowledge that we can freely provide to the world.
But on the flip side, what about our readers - as a result of these sort
of partnerships, we're increasing the number of times that we'll be
pointing them towards paywall-protected services to be able to verify the
information we provide, and hence the amount of money they'll be forced to
pay to these organisations. And perhaps, as editors, we're supporting
paywalls by accepting these offers (and hence making paywalls more
prevalent), rather than refusing them until they make the content that they
provide freely available.
So this is a balancing act - but I'm not currently sure which side
outweighs the other, or whether the two sides are currently balancing each
other out… What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we
can discuss these offers in general?
Thanks,
Mike
P.S. I've deliberately biased the view of this email a little towards the
negative, to try to offset the positive expectation set out in the previous
email a little. I think that I'm currently completely neutral on this
issue, though...
On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi <wikiocaasi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources
they need is gaining
momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can
sign up for ''right
now'':
* '''[[WP:Credo|Credo Reference]]''' provides full-text online
versions
of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in
every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and
encyclopedias. There are '''125''' full Credo 350 accounts
available, with
access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation.
All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up
[[Wikipedia:Credo#Sign-up sheet|here]].
* '''[[WP:HighBeam|HighBeam
Research]]''' has access to over 80 million
articles from 6,500
publications including newspapers, magazines, academic
journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new
articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a
wide range of subjects and industries. There are '''250''' full
access
1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000
edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications|here]].
*
'''[[WP:Questia|Questia]]''' is an online research library for
books
and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences.
Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including
77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper
articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be
'''1000'''
full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old
account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Questia#Apply here: Round
1|here]].
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the
next-generation idea to create a central '''Wikipedia Library'''
where
approved editors would have access to ''all'' participating resource
donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea,
add your feedback to the [
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wiki…
Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my
talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up!
--[[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l