OpenAccess May 2015

openaccess@lists.wikimedia.org

8 participants
6 discussions

Right to Research Coalition and EU lobbying on Open Access
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 08 Jun '15

08 Jun '15

######Cross-Post from Advocacy Advisors######### Hi all, This morning I met Nick Shockey from SPARC [1] and the Right to Research Coalition [2]. He's in Brussels to set up their Advocacy strategy and campaign on OA and OER. What we have have very much in common with them is that we're both worried that the term "Open Access" might be diluted to mean just having access. They also like to have more and more things put under a cc-by license, which overlaps with our goals. (As a reminder, here are our positions on the topic: [3][4]) The R2RC is organising an Open Access, Open Education and Open Data conference in Brussels coming November [5] and have asked us for some help: 1. Advise them on their advocacy targets and strategy. (I am already doing that.) 2. Participate in the conference by sending Wikimedians on scholarships. (Do you think we could/should do it and if yes how?) 3. They're planning a reception in the European Parliament in November and need a speaker. (Can we recommend someone?) 4. Struggle for interpretation: They have a brochure in the US explaining and defining OA in line with the Budapest Declaration. (Should we work with them on creating a European version and disseminating it?) Thanks! Dimi [1]http://www.sparc.arl.org/about/staff/nick-shockey [2]http://www.righttoresearch.org/ [3]http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/18/wikimedia-open-access-policy/ [4]http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/10/20/free-open-access-and-wikipedia/ [5]http://www.righttoresearch.org/blog/opencon-2015-details-announced.shtml

2 1

Integrating scientific literature into Wikipedia
by Saloni Agrawal 28 May '15

28 May '15

Hello everyone, Thanks a lot for all your great suggestions and comments. I appreciate your insights. Stuart - that's a really good point. One quick way to ensure the bot isn't adding information that's already there is by checking if the source article has already been cited on that specific Wikipedia page. If the citation is already present on that page, then users could potentially check if the new content is redundant. Edward - I read about Open Access Reader and I think it's a great initiative. I could contribute to this project by providing summaries, citation information, and the target page section to insert the summary into. We could crowdsource the 'integration' step. Lane - thanks a lot for all your great ideas. I would be interested in discussing options 3 and 4 in further detail. Option 3 - Talk pages would be a great platform for directly posting the summaries. Volunteers could help with the integration process. Option 4 - Do you have any suggestions on where we could post information on Wikipedia? Volunteers could propose where to post and / or my bot could propose possible page sections for volunteers to choose from. This will definitely serve as a useful continuous feedback loop. Pierre-Carl - I understand the Open Access Project OA-signalling tool is working on annotating whether citations refer to open access articles or not. That initiative could definitely help identify the OA citations for each articles. Is there any other way to determine this currently? I look forward to hearing from all of you. Best, Saloni On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:01 PM, <openaccess-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > Send OpenAccess mailing list submissions to > openaccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > openaccess-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > openaccess-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of OpenAccess digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Integrating scientific literature into Wikipedia > (Pierre-Carl Langlais) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:41:08 +0200 > From: Pierre-Carl Langlais <pierrecarl.langlais(a)gmail.com> > To: openaccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [OpenAccess] Integrating scientific literature into > Wikipedia > Message-ID: <5565AD54.3000701(a)gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hi everyone, > > I think an interesting first trial would be to select automatically > retrieve relevant OA bibliographies for each articles. As an experienced > wikipedian, I can testify that searching for references might be a > time-consuming activity, especially whenever I'm dealing with a topic I > don't know fully well. This kind of feature would allow to focus on the > actual writing. > > Greetings, > > PCL > > Le 27/05/15 13:34, Lane Rasberry a écrit : > > Hello, > > > > Here are some options. We could talk more about any of them. > > > > 1. A bot which created new Wikipedia articles about certain well > > reported clinical trials would probably be more feasible than > > putting sentences into Wikipedia health articles. > > 2. If you actually want to put content into existing articles, there > > probably is no way for your team learning how to do this without > > someone close to you spending about 40 hours on Wikipedia learning > > community practice. Wikipedia is the world's most consulted source > > of health information and takes itself seriously in this space. > > 3. If you want the easiest path, make the bot exactly as you say, but > > have it post to article talk pages so that a human volunteer can > > preview the content and integrate it into the Wikipedia article > > manually. > > 4. If you want to trial this, have the bot post information in a list > > anyone on or off Wikipedia and let volunteers choose where to post > > this. If you do this you would get feedback on what works and how > > it works. > > > > yours, > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Edward Saperia > > <ed(a)wikimanialondon.org <mailto:ed@wikimanialondon.org>> wrote: > > > > Very interesting! > > > > I've been working on a project that is related, but uses humans to > > do summarising and inserting: > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OpenAccessReader > > > > *Edward Saperia* > > Conference Director Wikimania London < > http://www.wikimanialondon.org/> > > email <mailto:ed@wikimanialondon.org> • facebook > > <http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia> • twitter > > <http://www.twitter.com/edsaperia> • 07796955572 > > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG > > > > On 27 May 2015 at 08:49, Saloni Agrawal <saloniagrawal(a)gmail.com > > <mailto:saloniagrawal@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone, my name is Saloni, and I’m a bioinformaticist. > > > > I am interested in integrating scientific literature into > > Wikipedia. I’m developing software that imports short 3 or > > 4-sentence summaries from open access articles into > > appropriate sections of Wikipedia pages. The idea is for > > readers to have access to open and recent published research > > and to make Wikipedia a more comprehensive resource. > > > > For example, this paper > > (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10906501) describes > > a clinical study carried out among Latin American women to > > test a combined injectable contraceptive called Mesigyna. My > > software is designed to summarize a few sentences from the > > abstract (Creative Commons license for legal reasons) and > > integrate it on this page “Combined injectable contraceptive” > > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_injectable_contraceptive > ) > > elaborating on Mesigyna in the Formulations sections. > > > > Ideally, I would like to develop this into a bot so that users > > don’t have to manually add information. I would really > > appreciate any guidance and guidelines on implementing this > > and how to get approval from the Wikipedia community. > > > > > > > > I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Saloni > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenAccess mailing list > > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > <mailto:OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenAccess mailing list > > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Lane Rasberry > > user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia > > 206.801.0814 > > lane(a)bluerasberry.com <mailto:lane@bluerasberry.com> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenAccess mailing list > > OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess > >

1 0

Integrating scientific literature into Wikipedia
by Saloni Agrawal 27 May '15

27 May '15

Hello everyone, my name is Saloni, and I’m a bioinformaticist. I am interested in integrating scientific literature into Wikipedia. I’m developing software that imports short 3 or 4-sentence summaries from open access articles into appropriate sections of Wikipedia pages. The idea is for readers to have access to open and recent published research and to make Wikipedia a more comprehensive resource. For example, this paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10906501) describes a clinical study carried out among Latin American women to test a combined injectable contraceptive called Mesigyna. My software is designed to summarize a few sentences from the abstract (Creative Commons license for legal reasons) and integrate it on this page “Combined injectable contraceptive” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_injectable_contraceptive) elaborating on Mesigyna in the Formulations sections. Ideally, I would like to develop this into a bot so that users don’t have to manually add information. I would really appreciate any guidance and guidelines on implementing this and how to get approval from the Wikipedia community. I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions. Best regards, Saloni

5 4

green OA snag: Ingelfinger embargo, and new use case for WikiProject Source MetaData
by Hazel 25 May '15

25 May '15

(apologies to those who have heard about this from every librarian they know for the past month) A major publisher announced at the end of April that they will seek to prevent green OA author's manuscripts* from appearing on publicly-accessible websites, including institutional repositories, within an embargo time of up to four years (depending on the journal). According to COAR (the Confederation of Open-Access Repositories), this is retroactive. They also announce a policy of noncommercial noderivs licenses on all copies of author's manuscripts, which would mean that we, for instance, couldn't use images from these sources, even after the embargo had expired. *(post-peer-review, pre-publisher-copyediting-and-formatting, for complete clarity; see W:self-archiving) This seems to have annoyed some repositories, and they are requesting signatures for their statement of opposition: https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/petition-a…. The signatories make a nice list of possible institutional collaborators. It is possible the Wikimedia Foundation may also wish to comment. The publisher does say that academics may publish their own articles on their personal blogs and websites (judging from past takedown requests, this appears not to cover personal webpages hosted by universities). Compared to institutional repositories, indexing and discovery would be more difficult and more fragile. So we have a substantial new use case for WikiData WikiProject Source MetaData. Can we write something to post to the Confederation of Open-Access Repositories, essentially saying that we can help crowdsource links to historical papers, and maintain those links in future? How far do people think we are, practically, from being able to do this? Many of these repositories have good open APIs and good staff, so we could in principle upload a lot of metadata fast. Regards, HLHJ

1 0

Freedom of Panorama Research (crosspost)
by Jake Orlowitz 15 May '15

15 May '15

Hi folks, I'm reposting below a request from the advocacy-advisors list. My hunch is that this list will be pretty well informed about Freedom of Panorama issues and be able to help. Jake (Ocaasi) --------- Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 16:36:38 -0700 From: Aeryn Palmer <apalmer(a)wikimedia.org> To: Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Advocacy Advisors] Research on Freedom of Panorama Message-ID: <CA+7J+5Hv9wUUtkPiq8Ukdyy48wKrmeR_i0vzC5HNE-aYYUuyqw(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Hi Everyone, I'm a legal intern in WMF's San Francisco office. I'm doing some research on Freedom of Panorama and the digital single market. If anyone is able to suggest any cases or other sources that discuss or demonstrate the effects that harmonizing FoP laws would have on the single market, please get in touch. Thanks very much! Best, Aeryn Palmer -- Aeryn Palmer Legal Intern Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 apalmer(a)wikimedia.org 415.839.6885 (Office) 415.882.0495 (Fax) NOTICE: *This message might have confidential or legally privileged information in iIf you have received this message by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only serve as a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal* *capacity.*

1 0

Arbitrary access can be tested now
by Daniel Mietchen 11 May '15

11 May '15

I started to do so at https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Daniel_Mietchen/Arbitrary_access#Or… in order to use license information from Wikidata in references on Wikipedia pages. Hope to see you there. d.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

OpenAccess May 2015