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]
--> 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