Start with one and then see how that goes. It can be fine tuned, then
used as a case study for further sources who may otherwise have
concerns.
We have two ways to make it "not just anyone", both are equally
malleable. The first is, set criteria based on edits, "level of
trust", or FA/GA contributions. The other is we ask for a rate for "up
to 5000 editors of our choice", which is probably similar size to a
number of institutions or universities, and we then can fine tune
internally how those are allocated. The latter would mean that we have
a lot of flexibility - we can avoid giving access to some editors who
meet the criteria but don't much need it, and give access to those who
can make a good case for it.
One option might be even, request access for up to 1000 users, and
indicate a list of "criteria + fee/donation requested" (including
"these are the kinds of editors who will get priority"). First 1000
applications get access. If the demand is there, we can request access
for a further 1000 users and repeat.
Bear in mind we are not after permission to republish them. We just
want access for selected users to read and verify the information, or
publish a generalized summary. This would not compete, any more than a
journal citation in a bibliography or academic paper would "compete".
FT2
On 12/21/08, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I did some preliminary inquires a year ago, with not
very enthusiastic
publisher response, but could follow up now--I think we're much more
visible.
Based on request I get to help out, and on observed editing and some
user pages, I don't think it's remotely true, even in many science
fields, that most of our editors have access to university libraries.
Nor do I think that most of our content editors are administrators;
conversely, of the 1100 active admins, perhaps half are active
editors. Perhaps we should think on the basis of active editors over
say 500 mainspace edits. This should significantly reassure the
publishers. How many people is that?
In my experience as an ejournal negotiator, starting from the first
days of ejournals. publishers are not very willing to reduce
significantly below published rate schedules, and we might do better
asking for it as a donation. . But both could be tried. Most
publishers have flat rates, in science averaging $1000 per journal,
much less in the humanities. -- but there are a great many titles.
some go by size--& for this we're unique in terms of subscriber base &
its hard to predict what they'd estimate.
Let's take JSTOR--remember, its backfiles only, typically without the
most recent 5 yrs. If one wants the most recent 5 yrs, one goes to
the publisher & pays by title. Very very roughly, rates for the JStor
portion can be $500/yr for a small public library to $50,000 for a
university, depending of where they class the institution & how many
titles. If the foundation would like me to approach them, someone
should email me offline.
In science, I think some of the scientific societies will donate & the
way to go is for some member to inquire Remember that all US NIH & UK
MRC papers will be available free from 08+ after a 6 month delay
through pubmedcentral.
There are of course great many other possibilities, but all the
relatively inexpensive ones involve backfiles only.
At the going rates, figure about $1000 per journal in science--less in
other subjects for academic journals. I doubt we'll get discounts, and
I think we'll do better to ask for it as a donation. I've made
preliminary inquiries in the past, and not gotten very far. But maybe
it is time to try gain.
The publisher I think this would really make sense for in terms of
things like BLP is the NYTimes blocked years, but essentially all
public libraries should have them.
As for JSTOR, this is perhaps a possibility as a special case. I can
make the contact. T
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/20/08, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I doubt that most conventional publishers will
permit the Foundation
to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price,
which is often as high as $40 per article. (that's what this amounts
to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a
Wikipedia account.
Access to anyone with a wikipedia account would never fly-- that's
essentially asking them to offer it to anyone with internet access.
But getting access to our admins, our users who have acheived a
certain edit count, or have some other well-defined criteria wouldn't
be much different from a university library giving access to all
enrolled students.
Also a plus-- Wikipedia's content editors are, I think, by a large,
usually in academia. Our editors tend to be disproportionately
college-aged or college-affiliated. That means that many or most of
the people we would be buying the service for already have it, and so
would represent pure profit to JSTOR (or whomever).
Alec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l