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
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
- Reader Rights
- 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
A further comment: I see there is a section about colourshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_OA-ness#Colorson the Wikipedia page. Introducing any colouration to distinguish the different symbols may be problematic, both for accessibility reasons (e.g. people who are colour blind) and also due to the colours that are already used for different types of open access. If a golden padlock is used, some people may confuse this with meaning 'gold open access' which is a different issue altogether. This might lend weight to the PLOS-style solution I proposed above.
Thanks, Stuart
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
- Reader Rights
- 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
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
- Reader Rights
- 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
I broadly agree with you Andrew, having a simple 'yes' or 'no' is the best way forward as is having just two symbols which clearly represent 'open' or 'closed'.
If the 'open' symbol to signify open access does not take into account of the finer details of licensing, then potentially it might get used on any free to read content, no matter whether it's 'scholarly' or not? Is that a problem, or is it a good thing?
Thanks, Stuart
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
- Reader Rights
- 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
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
- Reader Rights
- 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
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
- Reader Rights
- 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
...
1. *Closed access* - not free to read (subscription required, paywalled) - *closed gray lock* 2. *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.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.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
- Reader Rights
- 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
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
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
On 10 September 2013 17:15, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
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?
I did a bit more thinking about this today. It's a fun question, but probably a distraction for now ;-)
Some - hopefully more structured - thoughts on the icons
Firstly, there is clearly some kind of fuzzy difference between a newspaper article which is free-to-read and a self-archived journal article which is free-to-read - one is business as usual, one is open access. My questioning suggests people find it hard to draw the line, but we can all agree on roughly where to draw it. Let's assume for the moment that we're going to talk about explicitly "academic" material and leave everything else unmarked. ;-)
Secondly, there is certainly a valid distinction to be made between gold OA and green OA, or OA tied to specific forms of licensing versus purely "free to read". However, I think saying that one is _defined_ as "open access" and the other is not, and using WP as a position from which to do this labelling, is a problematic move. We would be taking a clear position in an active and ongoing debate about the nature and meaning of OA, and - personally - I'm not even sure we'd be taking the right side.
Thirdly, I still think that visually distinguishing between "free content" and "free to read" in links is ultimately not a productive activity. It's negative because takes up our time; it increases the cognitive burden on readers who now have to juggle a third symbol; and it makes an (admittedly inoffensive) gesture towards "rewarding" content we like by highlighting it. By comparison, the positive benefits seem very limited - a small number of readers who understand and care about free content get a piece of information that should, hopefully, be clear if they follow the link anyway.
My concern is that we are still providing a service to our readers, who want to know what they can do with a source? Do they have to pay to see it, or can they just click through and read it? That's their primary concern: can they read it. The second issue is whether the source is free for reuse in the libre sense. We want to signal that because we do want to highlight those sources, I think. I'm not sure I see how green and gold fit into this, as they don't necessarily impact the pay-read-reuse structure. Green articles may not be free to reuse, and same with Gold while a Gold article may be free to reuse while a green may not. So I think that's a side issue that we're actually not wading into with the pay-read-reuse structure. And I agree we shouldn't weigh into that broader debate as it's very much still up in the air.
On 9/10/13, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 September 2013 17:15, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
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?
I did a bit more thinking about this today. It's a fun question, but probably a distraction for now ;-)
Some - hopefully more structured - thoughts on the icons
Firstly, there is clearly some kind of fuzzy difference between a newspaper article which is free-to-read and a self-archived journal article which is free-to-read - one is business as usual, one is open access. My questioning suggests people find it hard to draw the line, but we can all agree on roughly where to draw it. Let's assume for the moment that we're going to talk about explicitly "academic" material and leave everything else unmarked. ;-)
Secondly, there is certainly a valid distinction to be made between gold OA and green OA, or OA tied to specific forms of licensing versus purely "free to read". However, I think saying that one is _defined_ as "open access" and the other is not, and using WP as a position from which to do this labelling, is a problematic move. We would be taking a clear position in an active and ongoing debate about the nature and meaning of OA, and - personally - I'm not even sure we'd be taking the right side.
Thirdly, I still think that visually distinguishing between "free content" and "free to read" in links is ultimately not a productive activity. It's negative because takes up our time; it increases the cognitive burden on readers who now have to juggle a third symbol; and it makes an (admittedly inoffensive) gesture towards "rewarding" content we like by highlighting it. By comparison, the positive benefits seem very limited - a small number of readers who understand and care about free content get a piece of information that should, hopefully, be clear if they follow the link anyway.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
I agree that it's best to leave aside green/gold distinctions. It seems like there is only one central thing that we're debating here, and that's whether or not to have two separate symbols for 'free-to-read' and 'open access'. The three-symbol pay-read-reuse structure does make a lot of sense, but Andrew's concerns are valid.
Does anyone else reading this have a strong feeling either way? It would be good to get more opinions. To that end, would it be useful to create a summary of the debate and post it/advertise it more widely within Wikipedia (or has that already been done, besides the Signalling OA-ness page)?
Stuart
On 10 September 2013 19:38, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
My concern is that we are still providing a service to our readers, who want to know what they can do with a source? Do they have to pay to see it, or can they just click through and read it? That's their primary concern: can they read it. The second issue is whether the source is free for reuse in the libre sense. We want to signal that because we do want to highlight those sources, I think. I'm not sure I see how green and gold fit into this, as they don't necessarily impact the pay-read-reuse structure. Green articles may not be free to reuse, and same with Gold while a Gold article may be free to reuse while a green may not. So I think that's a side issue that we're actually not wading into with the pay-read-reuse structure. And I agree we shouldn't weigh into that broader debate as it's very much still up in the air.
On 9/10/13, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 September 2013 17:15, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com
wrote:
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?
I did a bit more thinking about this today. It's a fun question, but probably a distraction for now ;-)
Some - hopefully more structured - thoughts on the icons
Firstly, there is clearly some kind of fuzzy difference between a newspaper article which is free-to-read and a self-archived journal article which is free-to-read - one is business as usual, one is open access. My questioning suggests people find it hard to draw the line, but we can all agree on roughly where to draw it. Let's assume for the moment that we're going to talk about explicitly "academic" material and leave everything else unmarked. ;-)
Secondly, there is certainly a valid distinction to be made between gold OA and green OA, or OA tied to specific forms of licensing versus purely "free to read". However, I think saying that one is _defined_ as "open access" and the other is not, and using WP as a position from which to do this labelling, is a problematic move. We would be taking a clear position in an active and ongoing debate about the nature and meaning of OA, and - personally - I'm not even sure we'd be taking the right side.
Thirdly, I still think that visually distinguishing between "free content" and "free to read" in links is ultimately not a productive activity. It's negative because takes up our time; it increases the cognitive burden on readers who now have to juggle a third symbol; and it makes an (admittedly inoffensive) gesture towards "rewarding" content we like by highlighting it. By comparison, the positive benefits seem very limited - a small number of readers who understand and care about free content get a piece of information that should, hopefully, be clear if they follow the link anyway.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
I'm quietly watching the discussion and have been wondering whether anyone has thought about people with disabilities. Green, gold, orange, etc....can a colorblind (or fully blind) person see these distinctions? I'm not an expert in web design, but I believe that web designers are told to stay away from depending on color alone to guide users.
Isn't it important to be able to provide open access to those for whom much of the world is particularly closed?
Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users - My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.comwrote:
I agree that it's best to leave aside green/gold distinctions. It seems like there is only one central thing that we're debating here, and that's whether or not to have two separate symbols for 'free-to-read' and 'open access'. The three-symbol pay-read-reuse structure does make a lot of sense, but Andrew's concerns are valid.
Does anyone else reading this have a strong feeling either way? It would be good to get more opinions. To that end, would it be useful to create a summary of the debate and post it/advertise it more widely within Wikipedia (or has that already been done, besides the Signalling OA-ness page)?
Stuart
On 10 September 2013 19:38, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
My concern is that we are still providing a service to our readers, who want to know what they can do with a source? Do they have to pay to see it, or can they just click through and read it? That's their primary concern: can they read it. The second issue is whether the source is free for reuse in the libre sense. We want to signal that because we do want to highlight those sources, I think. I'm not sure I see how green and gold fit into this, as they don't necessarily impact the pay-read-reuse structure. Green articles may not be free to reuse, and same with Gold while a Gold article may be free to reuse while a green may not. So I think that's a side issue that we're actually not wading into with the pay-read-reuse structure. And I agree we shouldn't weigh into that broader debate as it's very much still up in the air.
On 9/10/13, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 September 2013 17:15, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com
wrote:
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?
I did a bit more thinking about this today. It's a fun question, but probably a distraction for now ;-)
Some - hopefully more structured - thoughts on the icons
Firstly, there is clearly some kind of fuzzy difference between a newspaper article which is free-to-read and a self-archived journal article which is free-to-read - one is business as usual, one is open access. My questioning suggests people find it hard to draw the line, but we can all agree on roughly where to draw it. Let's assume for the moment that we're going to talk about explicitly "academic" material and leave everything else unmarked. ;-)
Secondly, there is certainly a valid distinction to be made between gold OA and green OA, or OA tied to specific forms of licensing versus purely "free to read". However, I think saying that one is _defined_ as "open access" and the other is not, and using WP as a position from which to do this labelling, is a problematic move. We would be taking a clear position in an active and ongoing debate about the nature and meaning of OA, and - personally - I'm not even sure we'd be taking the right side.
Thirdly, I still think that visually distinguishing between "free content" and "free to read" in links is ultimately not a productive activity. It's negative because takes up our time; it increases the cognitive burden on readers who now have to juggle a third symbol; and it makes an (admittedly inoffensive) gesture towards "rewarding" content we like by highlighting it. By comparison, the positive benefits seem very limited - a small number of readers who understand and care about free content get a piece of information that should, hopefully, be clear if they follow the link anyway.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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
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
Hi Bob, that's an important point and one that has been thought about. Green open access and Gold open access are jargon terms for self-archiving and open access journal publishing respectively, and these colour attributes are merely abstract (and admittedly potentially misleading) terms and they wouldn't be represented in any logos/symbols that we might choose.
The orange symbol is the one from PLOS that has become a fairly standard symbol of open access (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_PLoS.svg). Its important feature is that it is an /open/ lock. You're right that for good accessibility online, colour should not be the only factor to distinguish between logos. This is a part of the reason why we're likely to choose an open lock/closed lock combination, with colour as a secondary distinguishing feature.
There's an example here of how they might look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_O.... I hope that's adequate for people who are colourblind. I'm not sure how those logos would manifest for people with further visual impairments, but the text of the template/tags (in this example) uses the words 'open access' and 'closed access' respectively. If anything more needs to be done I'm sure we can work it out before implementing whichever system is finally decided on.
Thanks, Stuart
On 10 September 2013 22:14, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
I'm quietly watching the discussion and have been wondering whether anyone has thought about people with disabilities. Green, gold, orange, etc....can a colorblind (or fully blind) person see these distinctions? I'm not an expert in web design, but I believe that web designers are told to stay away from depending on color alone to guide users.
Isn't it important to be able to provide open access to those for whom much of the world is particularly closed?
Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
- My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.comwrote:
I agree that it's best to leave aside green/gold distinctions. It seems like there is only one central thing that we're debating here, and that's whether or not to have two separate symbols for 'free-to-read' and 'open access'. The three-symbol pay-read-reuse structure does make a lot of sense, but Andrew's concerns are valid.
Does anyone else reading this have a strong feeling either way? It would be good to get more opinions. To that end, would it be useful to create a summary of the debate and post it/advertise it more widely within Wikipedia (or has that already been done, besides the Signalling OA-ness page)?
Stuart
On 10 September 2013 19:38, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
My concern is that we are still providing a service to our readers, who want to know what they can do with a source? Do they have to pay to see it, or can they just click through and read it? That's their primary concern: can they read it. The second issue is whether the source is free for reuse in the libre sense. We want to signal that because we do want to highlight those sources, I think. I'm not sure I see how green and gold fit into this, as they don't necessarily impact the pay-read-reuse structure. Green articles may not be free to reuse, and same with Gold while a Gold article may be free to reuse while a green may not. So I think that's a side issue that we're actually not wading into with the pay-read-reuse structure. And I agree we shouldn't weigh into that broader debate as it's very much still up in the air.
On 9/10/13, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 September 2013 17:15, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com
wrote:
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?
I did a bit more thinking about this today. It's a fun question, but probably a distraction for now ;-)
Some - hopefully more structured - thoughts on the icons
Firstly, there is clearly some kind of fuzzy difference between a newspaper article which is free-to-read and a self-archived journal article which is free-to-read - one is business as usual, one is open access. My questioning suggests people find it hard to draw the line, but we can all agree on roughly where to draw it. Let's assume for the moment that we're going to talk about explicitly "academic" material and leave everything else unmarked. ;-)
Secondly, there is certainly a valid distinction to be made between gold OA and green OA, or OA tied to specific forms of licensing versus purely "free to read". However, I think saying that one is _defined_ as "open access" and the other is not, and using WP as a position from which to do this labelling, is a problematic move. We would be taking a clear position in an active and ongoing debate about the nature and meaning of OA, and - personally - I'm not even sure we'd be taking the right side.
Thirdly, I still think that visually distinguishing between "free content" and "free to read" in links is ultimately not a productive activity. It's negative because takes up our time; it increases the cognitive burden on readers who now have to juggle a third symbol; and it makes an (admittedly inoffensive) gesture towards "rewarding" content we like by highlighting it. By comparison, the positive benefits seem very limited - a small number of readers who understand and care about free content get a piece of information that should, hopefully, be clear if they follow the link anyway.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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
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
OpenAccess mailing list OpenAccess@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
Interesting discussion - thanks to all who have joined in so far!
So far, we have covered the perspectives of readers, Wikipedians, OA advocates (in whatever form) and librarians.
Now let's think about implementation: what sources are available to gather the information whether some reference falls into one of our classes that we want to signal?
Of course, we could have a bot follow all the links provided with references, and whenever it hits a paywall, mark things as paywalled. But what if there is a non-paywalled version out there, how are we going to find it? Yes, Google Scholar has much of that information, but they do not allow systematic querying. And even if the bot (or someone) finds a copy somewhere, how do we know that it is legally up there? And for how long? Or, conversely, if we don't find anything now, perhaps an embargo is over somewhen down the line, and maybe someone will post the thing somewhere then - should we chase for these? And what about different file formats? JMIR, for instance, offers HTML for free (CC BY) but charges for PDF. Nature offers XML for "free to read by machines" but charges for PDF and HTML. How do we go about that?
Those kinds of problems do not occur if we just stick to labelling stuff that has a CC license associated with it in trusted sources of metadata (like DOAJ or CrossRef). The rest is (to be) covered by the OA button approach, a representation of which should ultimately be part of our signalling scheme.
The next question, then, would be whether we go for "any CC license" or some subset thereof for the part that we implement ourselves. I agree that most readers don't care, while many Wikimedians do, and I think we should cater to both groups. This could be achieved in multiple ways, e.g. by having a free to read icon on Wikipedia and some representation of the licensing on Wikidata (once we have individual references represented there).
On the other hand, a signalling of OA-ness on Wikipedia should not be seen in isolation of the same thing being signalled elsewhere - be it in repositories or on the pages of publishers, on blogs or on the homepages of researchers. If all of these places were to use a certain signal to convey the meaning of "free to read" (in fact, many use the orange open lock icon for that), we are a small step ahead of a system in which readers always have to find out by themselves whether they can read something or not.
If, on the other hand, we can agree on what precisely we mean by OA, then a layer of tools and services (or "apps", if you prefer) could be build on top of that - just imagine an "import this image to X" button associated with images in places like PubMed Central or even at publishers (X, btw, could be Wikimedia Commons, or a blog, or an OER), or authors proudly displaying stats of the GLAMorous kind (cf. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_highly_reused_open-ac... ) in their lists of publications. If we go for anything here that includes -NC clauses, nobody other than the copyright holders could make money off those apps, while -ND stuff could not be edited, so it would not fit a wiki environment. This leaves us with Commons-compatible licenses, and considering that there are almost no scholarly papers licensed CC BY-SA, going for CC BY compatibility would not be a problem (a quick Google search on PubMed Central currently lists 13 articles under CC BY-SA, at least some of which - including one of mine - are false positives that talk about that license, rather than being licensed that way: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc+%22http%3A... ).
So I imagine that we signal the following: - initially, just" CC BY compatibility" (either through the CC BY icon or some non-orange version of the open lock - my favourite would be blue as in http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/bha.2114 or https://twitter.com/OpenAccessEC ). Not sure whether CC0/PD stuff should be signalled separately - probably yes if we go for a CC BY icon before, perhaps not if we go for something else, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sz%C3%A9chenyi_l%C3%A1nch%C3%ADd_in_... ). - once this works, we could also signal "free to read" for stuff that is under other CC licenses (e.g. via a book icon; this may cause confusion, though, in the sense that some may believe that CC BY means not free to read, at least if we do not also use the free to read icon alongside the CC BY icon) - in the long run, references not being labelled by any of the two above would get a representation of the OA button's score (or whatever they have then) for that article (which may include a signal that some "free to read" version is available).
so long,
d.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bob, that's an important point and one that has been thought about. Green open access and Gold open access are jargon terms for self-archiving and open access journal publishing respectively, and these colour attributes are merely abstract (and admittedly potentially misleading) terms and they wouldn't be represented in any logos/symbols that we might choose.
The orange symbol is the one from PLOS that has become a fairly standard symbol of open access (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_PLoS.svg). Its important feature is that it is an /open/ lock. You're right that for good accessibility online, colour should not be the only factor to distinguish between logos. This is a part of the reason why we're likely to choose an open lock/closed lock combination, with colour as a secondary distinguishing feature.
There's an example here of how they might look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Signalling_O.... I hope that's adequate for people who are colourblind. I'm not sure how those logos would manifest for people with further visual impairments, but the text of the template/tags (in this example) uses the words 'open access' and 'closed access' respectively. If anything more needs to be done I'm sure we can work it out before implementing whichever system is finally decided on.
Thanks, Stuart
On 10 September 2013 22:14, Bob Kosovsky bobkosovsky@nypl.org wrote:
I'm quietly watching the discussion and have been wondering whether anyone has thought about people with disabilities. Green, gold, orange, etc....can a colorblind (or fully blind) person see these distinctions? I'm not an expert in web design, but I believe that web designers are told to stay away from depending on color alone to guide users.
Isn't it important to be able to provide open access to those for whom much of the world is particularly closed?
Bob Kosovsky, Ph.D. -- Curator, Rare Books and Manuscripts, Music Division, The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts blog: http://www.nypl.org/blog/author/44 Twitter: @kos2 Listowner: OPERA-L ; SMT-TALK ; SMT-ANNOUNCE ; SoundForge-users
- My opinions do not necessarily represent those of my institutions -
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that it's best to leave aside green/gold distinctions. It seems like there is only one central thing that we're debating here, and that's whether or not to have two separate symbols for 'free-to-read' and 'open access'. The three-symbol pay-read-reuse structure does make a lot of sense, but Andrew's concerns are valid.
Does anyone else reading this have a strong feeling either way? It would be good to get more opinions. To that end, would it be useful to create a summary of the debate and post it/advertise it more widely within Wikipedia (or has that already been done, besides the Signalling OA-ness page)?
Stuart
On 10 September 2013 19:38, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
My concern is that we are still providing a service to our readers, who want to know what they can do with a source? Do they have to pay to see it, or can they just click through and read it? That's their primary concern: can they read it. The second issue is whether the source is free for reuse in the libre sense. We want to signal that because we do want to highlight those sources, I think. I'm not sure I see how green and gold fit into this, as they don't necessarily impact the pay-read-reuse structure. Green articles may not be free to reuse, and same with Gold while a Gold article may be free to reuse while a green may not. So I think that's a side issue that we're actually not wading into with the pay-read-reuse structure. And I agree we shouldn't weigh into that broader debate as it's very much still up in the air.
On 9/10/13, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 10 September 2013 17:15, Stuart Lawson stuart.a.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
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?
I did a bit more thinking about this today. It's a fun question, but probably a distraction for now ;-)
Some - hopefully more structured - thoughts on the icons
Firstly, there is clearly some kind of fuzzy difference between a newspaper article which is free-to-read and a self-archived journal article which is free-to-read - one is business as usual, one is open access. My questioning suggests people find it hard to draw the line, but we can all agree on roughly where to draw it. Let's assume for the moment that we're going to talk about explicitly "academic" material and leave everything else unmarked. ;-)
Secondly, there is certainly a valid distinction to be made between gold OA and green OA, or OA tied to specific forms of licensing versus purely "free to read". However, I think saying that one is _defined_ as "open access" and the other is not, and using WP as a position from which to do this labelling, is a problematic move. We would be taking a clear position in an active and ongoing debate about the nature and meaning of OA, and - personally - I'm not even sure we'd be taking the right side.
Thirdly, I still think that visually distinguishing between "free content" and "free to read" in links is ultimately not a productive activity. It's negative because takes up our time; it increases the cognitive burden on readers who now have to juggle a third symbol; and it makes an (admittedly inoffensive) gesture towards "rewarding" content we like by highlighting it. By comparison, the positive benefits seem very limited - a small number of readers who understand and care about free content get a piece of information that should, hopefully, be clear if they follow the link anyway.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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 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
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
openaccess@lists.wikimedia.org