Provided we can get a consistent meaning, I don't see why this has to be only for journal articles.
I was originally thinking we should aim for one icon per reference though, so a newspaper article that's free to read would only have the single book icon, because it's not 'closed' in the sense of 'you must pay to read it', and the closed lock suggests you can't actually access it. In that sense the 3 icons are in order of accessibility/oa-ness and you'd only have one per reference.
Jake
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.comwrote:
Okay. That might work. I can see that it's best for the orange lock to be associated only with 'true' open access with re-use rights.
Andrew and I have been talking about whether these symbols might be more broadly used than for journal articles/scholarly content. For example, a paywalled newpaper article might be marked up with the closed symbol and a free-to-read newspaper article with a book icon (if we were to go with the proposed three symbols). Is this something we need to think about?
On 10 September 2013 14:23, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
...
- *Closed access* - not free to read (subscription required, paywalled)
- *closed gray lock*
- *Free to read but not to reuse* - i'd like to see some lock variation
proposed or a *book icon* 3. *Free to read and to reuse* - at least as free as CC-BY-SA (including CC-BY) - *open orange padlock*
Jake
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.comwrote:
In talking with Daniel and Lane, I think we have zeroed in on 3 important levels.
On 9/10/13, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all. Andrew raises a very goog point (I remember Ocaasi saying something
very
similar). It's a very important and pragmatical position (a very
"librarian-oriented"
one, I would add :-) and I fully respect that.
But, at the same time, I feel that we do not want to associate the
orange
padlock, which is a sort of default symbol of Open Access, with just free to read.
I don't really want to do "The Stallman" here, "free to read" is not
Open
Access, and, in the long run, this matters. This is why I proposed a 3 icons system, intead of binary one.
3 icons, I argue, convey more meaning than 2, and we should want that nuance signalled.
We can choose different icons, if the ones I proposed are not OK. But I have the (weak) opinion that we can make this system more useful
and
"sustainable" if we associate the orange lock to real Open Access. I would think it's important for the OA movement and the Wikimedia
one, at
the same time. We push CC-BY-ish licence with GLAMs and in every kind of outreach. It's important, because make us *interoperable* with the world outside.
Having said that, I won't mind if the collective decision is just for 2 icons, really. I just wish we could be easy and simple and clear even conveying information we care about.
Aubrey
On 9 September 2013 13:26, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the approaches suggested - they seem to be oriented to the philosophy of OA rather than the
functional
results.
From a reader's perspective, they really only care about one thing: "can I read this, right now, without paying or signing anything". Any other information is wasted on almost everyone, and the more information we try and provide in our signalling system, the less useful it becomes. We can convey one or two things clearly ("YES, NO"), but if we try and convey subtle details, everyone gets
confused.
I agree it's sometimes useful to know about licenses etc... but most people, most of the time, don't care, and those of us who do care can follow the link and find out. Is it really important for us to maintain this information in Wikipedia citations? Has anyone ever
said
"maybe I won't follow that link, it's CC-BY-NC"? I'm not seeing the real benefit here.
I would suggest we need to identify two things:
a) This article (or this copy of this article) is "open access", gold or green - you, yes you, can follow this link right now and read it. It might be gold in PLoS One, it might be a repository copy with an expired embargo, it might be a postprint on arXiv, but you can read it, and maybe you thought you couldn't.
b) This article is locked\paywalled and you cannot read it without special access. This symbol works for both the Elsevier Journal of Expensive Research and for an article in the New York Times.
Open padlock, closed padlock. Maybe differently-styled padlocks (the curvy OA one versus a squared-off closed one?). Nice and simple and widely understood.
Anything else is more useful to us, as people who care about open access and debate definitions, than it is to the general public.
Andrew.
[disclaimer: I am on my lunch break. this does not necessarily represent the OA position of my employer]
On 9 September 2013 13:08, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com wrote: > I know that many people may interpret open access as 'free to
read',
but I'm > not sure that building that into a signalling system in Wikipedia
is
> the > best idea. I've not totally thought this through yet, and I realise > that > it's quite a complex set of degrees of openness which you've
managed
> to > condense into three symbols well. But how about just using the PLOS signals > in their 'how open is it' guide, i.e. the orange 'lock' logo for
open
access > and the orange lock but with a cross through it for closed access? > > * orange padlock for "open access" ("CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", and
perhaps
also > more restrictive CC licenses) > * crossed-out orange padlock for "closed access" > > This wouldn't signal free to read content that has no re-use
rights,
> but > then I don't think this type of content has anything to do with
true
open > access according to the standard definitions (Budapest etc.). > > I also think we maybe don't need to take embargos into account. At
the
end > of an embargo date, a majority of articles are still not open
access.
The > process of an article becoming open access at the end of an
embargo is
not > usually automatic but relies on them actually being deposited in a > repository. For this reason I think it would be misleading to mark
up
> articles in Wikipedia with a symbol that makes reference to embargo dates, > because there is no way of knowing whether the *potential* for open access > is achieved on this date. > > Just some thoughts. > > Thanks, > Stuart > User:Lawsonstu > > > > On 9 September 2013 12:09, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Dear all, I forward in this list a simple proposal I made for and >> icon >> system >> for the Signalling OAness project on Wikipedia. >> Some of you have just read it, but I think it's important to
restart
the >> conversation on this new OA ml. >> >> >> >> We have a lot of things to decide for this project - one of this
is a
sort >> of icon system. >> >> TL;DR: My proposal for icons is: >> * grey padlock for "closed access" >> * yellow-ish or grey-ish padlock for "embargoed" or "CC-BY-NC and >> CC-BY-ND" articles. >> * golden padlock for "CC-BY" and "CC-BY-SA" >> >> ---- >> >> There are many approaches that we could take: >> for example, we can intend "open access" literally, and give the >> golden >> padlock (or another icon) to any "gratis" article, >> or we can intend "Open Access", be more strict and give it to
"libre"
>> ones. >> >> Leslie, in the skype call, mentioned the "how open is it" leaflet: >> >>
http://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/hoii_guide_rev2_web_jpegs2.jp...
>> >> We have somehow 6 dimensions: >> 1 Reader Rights >> 2 Reuse Rights >> 3 Copyrights >> 4 Author Posting Rights >> 5 Automatic Posting >> 6 Machine Readability >> >> The situation is similar in the Linked Open Data world, and they >> solved >> that with a star classification system: http://5stardata.info/ >> >> We can go in that direction, and develop our own
star/color/whatever
>> system... >> >> But for the purpose of the signalling OA in Wikipedia I would
stick
with >> "user rights", namely >> 1. Reader Rights >> 2. Reuse Rights >> >> Remembering that we need to analyze at the article-level, and we >> don't >> care about journals (not for now), things get simpler. >> >> So, this is my break down. >> Articles could either be: >> * gratis or >> * non gratis --> closed access, grey padlack >> >> And if they are gratis, are they immediate accessible? >> * yes >> * no -> embargo. We could have an explicit date for that,
retrivable
>> by >> bot, or we can simply have an icon. >> >> If they are gratis and immediately accessible, we can then break
down
the >> reuse rights with CC licenses. >> >> So, following along these arguments, my personal system would
involve
use >> of padlock with appropriate colors: >> * grey padlock for closed access >> * yellow-ish or grey-ish padlock for embargoed or CC-BY-NC and >> CC-BY-ND >> articles. >> * golden padlock for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA >> >> Note that I've compressed in 3 icons a much complex situation, but it's a >> start, maybe. >> >> I'd invite you to give me feedback about this, and propose
different
>> systems if mine is not amendable. >> >> Aubrey >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenAccess mailing list >> OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess >> > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAccess mailing list > OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess >
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
-- Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi Facebook: Jake Orlowitz http://www.facebook.com/jorlowitz Twitter: JakeOrlowitz https://twitter.com/JakeOrlowitz LinkedIn: Jake Orlowitz< http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=197604531%3E Email: jorlowitz@yahoo.com Skype: jorlowitz Cell: (484) 684-2104 Home: (484) 380-3940
-- Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi Facebook: Jake Orlowitz http://www.facebook.com/jorlowitz Twitter: JakeOrlowitz https://twitter.com/JakeOrlowitz LinkedIn: Jake Orlowitzhttp://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=197604531 Email: jorlowitz@yahoo.com Skype: jorlowitz Cell: (484) 684-2104 Home: (484) 380-3940
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess