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:
...1. Closed access - not free to read (subscription required, paywalled) - closed gray lock2. Free to read but not to reuse - i'd like to see some lock variation proposed or a book icon3. Free to read and to reuse - at least as free as CC-BY-SA (including CC-BY) - open orange padlockJake
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jake Orlowitz <jorlowitz@gmail.com> wrote: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.jpg
>>> >>
>>> >> 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>
Email: jorlowitz@yahoo.com
Skype: jorlowitz
Cell: (484) 684-2104
Home: (484) 380-3940
--LinkedIn: Jake OrlowitzEmail: jorlowitz@yahoo.comSkype: 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