Hi everyone,
Last year we asked for feedback about a large literature review we are currently conducting on peer-reviewed studies on Wikipedia. We thank everyone who gave us comments and pointers, and we have carefully listened to everything. We're glad to mention that we've joined forces with Finn Årup Nielsen, and so we'll be fully merging our review into his (his latest working paper is available at http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf).
In the next week or so we expect to release the main dataset of our extraction to a public SMW wiki for comments and feedback before we proceed with further analysis. However, we have two questions to clarify about how to release our data. I'll be posting them in two distinct threads for more organized responses. Here I'll ask a question about posting published abstracts, and in a separate posting I'll ask about license.
We would really love to put up all the abstracts of the articles that we post (and indeed have already done so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ACST), but I recently encountered the following article which basically argues that mass posting of abstracts is not justifiable as fair use, at least in the context of Wikipedia: http://journalology.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-you-cant-copy-abstracts-into.ht...
We don't think this argument necessarily applies to websites that list abstracts (for example, PubMed and Medeley published thousands of abstracts), but we would really liketo hear the community's comments on whether posting copyrighted abstracts (in our case, over 400) generally qualifies as fair use.
Regards, Chitu For the Wikilit project team: Arto Lanamäki, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Chitu Okoli
Abstracts are intended to be shared. Let's try not to give in to copyright paranoia too much...
--
Piotr Konieczny PhD Candidate Dept of Sociology Uni of Pittsburgh
http://pittsburgh.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus
On 3/10/2012 10:31 AM, Chitu Okoli wrote:
Hi everyone,
Last year we asked for feedback about a large literature review we are currently conducting on peer-reviewed studies on Wikipedia. We thank everyone who gave us comments and pointers, and we have carefully listened to everything. We're glad to mention that we've joined forces with Finn Årup Nielsen, and so we'll be fully merging our review into his (his latest working paper is available at http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf).
In the next week or so we expect to release the main dataset of our extraction to a public SMW wiki for comments and feedback before we proceed with further analysis. However, we have two questions to clarify about how to release our data. I'll be posting them in two distinct threads for more organized responses. Here I'll ask a question about posting published abstracts, and in a separate posting I'll ask about license.
We would really love to put up all the abstracts of the articles that we post (and indeed have already done so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ACST), but I recently encountered the following article which basically argues that mass posting of abstracts is not justifiable as fair use, at least in the context of Wikipedia: http://journalology.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-you-cant-copy-abstracts-into.ht...
We don't think this argument necessarily applies to websites that list abstracts (for example, PubMed and Medeley published thousands of abstracts), but we would really liketo hear the community's comments on whether posting copyrighted abstracts (in our case, over 400) generally qualifies as fair use.
Regards, Chitu For the Wikilit project team: Arto Lanamäki, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Chitu Okoli
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Chitu,
there is an ongoing debate on the copyright status of bibliographic data, the best resource to look up on this topic is the Open Bibliography and Open Bibliographic Data group of the Open Knowledge Foundation [1]. Here's a short summary by Peter Murray Rust on the state of IP of this data [2]. You may also want to follow his coverage of the problem of reusing/mining bibliographic data [3-4].
Cheers Dario
[1] http://openbiblio.net/ [2] http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/2012-February/000106.html [3] http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/03/04/information-mining-and-hargreaves-i... [4] http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/02/10/elsevier-nature-and-content-mining-...
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Piotr Konieczny wrote:
Abstracts are intended to be shared. Let's try not to give in to copyright paranoia too much...
Piotr Konieczny PhD Candidate Dept of Sociology Uni of Pittsburgh
http://pittsburgh.academia.edu/PiotrKonieczny/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus On 3/10/2012 10:31 AM, Chitu Okoli wrote:
Hi everyone,
Last year we asked for feedback about a large literature review we are currently conducting on peer-reviewed studies on Wikipedia. We thank everyone who gave us comments and pointers, and we have carefully listened to everything. We're glad to mention that we've joined forces with Finn Årup Nielsen, and so we'll be fully merging our review into his (his latest working paper is available at http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/pubdb/views/edoc_download.php/6012/pdf/imm6012.pdf).
In the next week or so we expect to release the main dataset of our extraction to a public SMW wiki for comments and feedback before we proceed with further analysis. However, we have two questions to clarify about how to release our data. I'll be posting them in two distinct threads for more organized responses. Here I'll ask a question about posting published abstracts, and in a separate posting I'll ask about license.
We would really love to put up all the abstracts of the articles that we post (and indeed have already done so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ACST), but I recently encountered the following article which basically argues that mass posting of abstracts is not justifiable as fair use, at least in the context of Wikipedia: http://journalology.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-you-cant-copy-abstracts-into.ht...
We don't think this argument necessarily applies to websites that list abstracts (for example, PubMed and Medeley published thousands of abstracts), but we would really liketo hear the community's comments on whether posting copyrighted abstracts (in our case, over 400) generally qualifies as fair use.
Regards, Chitu For the Wikilit project team: Arto Lanamäki, Mohamad Mehdi, Mostafa Mesgari, Finn Årup Nielsen, Chitu Okoli
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Peter M-R's , along with I think essentially everybody, agrees that the abstracts prepared by the *publishers* are unquestionably copyright. What he is proposing the use of is abstracts we prepare ourselves and publish under a free license. Publishers have never denied the right to do this manually; they claim to deny the right to do so using computer technology, and Peter is contesting this--I hope successfully
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dario Taraborelli dtaraborelli@wikimedia.org wrote:
http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/2012-February/000106.html
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org