<<In a message dated 12/23/2008 8:57:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilhelm@nixeagle.org writes:
If we start to use sources that only certain people can access, that closes off the ability of the average reader to verify what we write.>> -----------------------
The answer to this is "that only certain people can access ONLINE..."
Any citation should give a full bibliographic citation that could be looked up offline as well. We would not want to subscribe to any content that is *solely* online and doesn't exist offline (such as stirnet.com). So a subscription to the San Francisco Chronicle, *could* be found in an offline format, the online link is merely a convenience link for those who have access to it. Readers without, should still be able to verify the content in another fashion.
Will Johnson
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolc...)
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside. JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the opportunity publicized.
We should avoid general assumptions about any group of people, including ours. For instance, either that many editors have access to these resources already (I do, but I see no reason to believe "many" do), or that "most of academia" has any particular opinion of Wikimedia and its projects.
Perhaps this suggestion was posted to the wrong list - foundation-l would be more appropriate, since I don't think individual editors should be approaching organizations like JSTOR without the prior notice and approval of the Foundation.
Nathan
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside. JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the opportunity publicized.
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we always reinvent the wheel?
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are leaving out).
Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we always reinvent the wheel?
That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be something that any major university is willing to do?
Something that DGG can perhaps comment on.
Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are leaving out).
Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we always reinvent the wheel?
That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be something that any major university is willing to do?
Something that DGG can perhaps comment on.
Nathan
Hi all,
Speaking as (the other?) professional librarian on the list --
I doubt very much that this would happen, since a) most libraries can barely afford the subscriptions they have to databases and journals; and b) the cost of those subscriptions is almost always based on the number of people served -- usually the number of faculty and students on the campus. Limiting the use of these databases to the campus population is taken very seriously, and usually done by IP access, authenticated through a proxy server by whatever login system the campus uses.
I can't envision a way that we could restrict access to the databases/journals that WMF could hypothetically subscribe to, to any reasonable population, when anyone can sign up for a Wikimedia account.
-- phoebe
I agree with Phoebe that in general no university will be able to do that. Let me add some details, since licensing these materials has for years been my professional specialty--ever since first such electronic journals have been available. .
The normal licensing arrangement with a university for most publisher is that permission is granted for use of the material for any actual current member of the university, and, often, for anyone with permission to use the university library who is actually present in the library. This is typically enforced by a combination of i.p. -based access fir the university's domain, supplemented with access through a proxy server for those physically outside the domain--the access to the proxy server is normally controlled by the university identification system.
The contract is usually quite specific about who will count as a member of the university--normally current full or part time students, staff, and faculty. The university undertakes to enforce access via the server appropriately, and all universities take this quite seriously. It is also usually possible to obtain a certain number of individual passwords for designated individuals, with the university guaranteeing their proper distribution, as a means of bypassing the proxy server. Neither the publishers nor the universities usually like this, because of the nuisance of administration.
Some publishers insist on further restrictions--typically not permitting what is called walk-in access to those who may have access to the library, but are not university members. some universities also for reasons of their own prefer not to give such people access even when the publisher permits it.
Additional restrictions are sometimes present, especially for the most expensive material, such as patent of chemical databases: a limit to the number of simultaneous users, an absolute restriction to campus use only, a further absolute restriction to use within the library building only, or even a restriction of the use at a limited number of designated workstations, or even a single workstation. Typically, the cheaper the material ,the more flexible the arrangements.
Payment is normally based upon one of three mechanisms: 1/ total head count numbers of students plus faculty on a per-person basis, 2/ bands of large/medium/small university size-- generally also taking into consideration whether it is a research university likely to make extensive use, or just an undergraduate college, and 3/ sometimes for the less expensive titles, a flat rate per journal.
I cannot imagine that most publishers will be willing to permit off-campus access from members of the public, even were the university willing to pay for it at an increased price. I won't say it is absolutely impossible, but I have negotiated many contracts and never even attempted such a provision.
Similarly, I cannot imagine a reputable university prepared to try to cheat or equivocate on such provisions. I would certainly have refused to assist any such request. although there is a certain degree of adversary relationship with publishers as in any situation involving vendors and purchasers, there is also reliance upon good fait of the parties involved. The contracts usually require the university to assist in the investigation of breeches of the contract (these attempts are not uncommon--people will try to download extremely large bodies of material, sometimes for personal use, sometimes for the purpose of small or even large scale illicit redistribution) -- and the universities cooperate. (The contracts usually provide for cancellation of service if they do not so cooperate, but such cooperation is also seen as reasonable. There have been a few very large scale breeches over the years. We do not talk much about the details.) There is a difference between resenting the profits of commercial publishers, and being willing to steal their property. WPedians with their emphasis on copyright observance should well understand this. .
Public libraries are typically changed for remote access per head count of the population served, at a reduced rate from that for universities, assuming a much less intensive use. Control is usually through a proxy server with access through the library card identification number. The most expensive materials will not be licensed on this basis to public libraries, but only for library use only, and normally at a defined number of terminals or for a single simultaneous user at at time .
The only practical route will be a declared arrangement, either donated or paid for, for a limited number os users and a limited amount of material. This is not impossible, especially if the WMF is willing to operate the necessary proxy server and control the access to it. If the foundation proposes to try, I know the people to speak to, and will serve as a contact. But i certainly will do so only openly and in a commercially respectable manner. the only way of doing this inexpensively will be as a donation, and the only way of asking for a donation will be to make our sense of responsibility and our willingness to observe limits absolutely clear.
There is an alternate pathway. WPedians should find out what databases their local public library already subscribes to,and use them. They should then urge their public libraries to subscribe to what they need. The subscription rates for public libraries for limited subsets of JSTOR are not very high, but few public libraries subscribe, as they do not see a demand. Any library would rather spend its money on what its patrons will actually use, and ask for.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:27 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
Would such a restriction really be a major disaster? Limited access to content for which we previously had no access? Sometimes achieving a worthy goal requires a compromise, and in this case it doesn't strike me as an unnacceptable compromise (even granting full credit to your description of the status of things, which I imagine probably has some ambiguity you are leaving out).
Why does it seem that no one in this thread is bothering to even consider attaching to pre-existing university library access? Must we always reinvent the wheel?
That is an interesting possibility - is that achievable? Would interpreting an existing set of agreements between publishers and a university as authorizing that institution to grant access to Wikimedia editors be something that any major university is willing to do?
Something that DGG can perhaps comment on.
Nathan
Hi all,
Speaking as (the other?) professional librarian on the list --
I doubt very much that this would happen, since a) most libraries can barely afford the subscriptions they have to databases and journals; and b) the cost of those subscriptions is almost always based on the number of people served -- usually the number of faculty and students on the campus. Limiting the use of these databases to the campus population is taken very seriously, and usually done by IP access, authenticated through a proxy server by whatever login system the campus uses.
I can't envision a way that we could restrict access to the databases/journals that WMF could hypothetically subscribe to, to any reasonable population, when anyone can sign up for a Wikimedia account.
-- phoebe
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
<snip a lot of details of journal/database licensing for libraries, which are consistent with my experience in the field>
There is an alternate pathway. WPedians should find out what databases their local public library already subscribes to,and use them. They should then urge their public libraries to subscribe to what they need. The subscription rates for public libraries for limited subsets of JSTOR are not very high, but few public libraries subscribe, as they do not see a demand. Any library would rather spend its money on what its patrons will actually use, and ask for.
I agree that this is by far the most practical way to go. Journal & database licensing is not too different from software licensing... asking to buy a license for JSTOR for all Wikipedia editors is a lot like asking to buy a group license for Microsoft Word for all Wikipedia editors. Expensive, impractical, distinctly non-free, and of questionable benefit for many. Taking full advantage of your public library, however, is precisely what they are there for. Those within range of a good university can typically be a "walk-in" patron and use their resources on-site, as well.
Institutionally, I think our collective energies would be better spent supporting the open access movement, free reference databases, efforts to freely digitize public domain materials, etc. Slowly but surely we can chip away at closed scholarship...
The problem of backing up our articles with solid scholarship is a big one, but not one that simple access to any particular database solves. For one thing, there's hundreds on hundreds of databases (which simply point to the literature) out there, and thousands and thousands of journals (which publish the literature) that are indexed by them. For another thing, as an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source: what we really need access to are the best of the secondary sources out there, the specialty encyclopedias and guides and handbooks that summarize information, not (in most cases) the original journal literature.* It's true that wider access for some full-text databases would be very helpful: particularly news and business databases, perhaps, that would include biographies for many of our BLPs. But fortunately these are the databases most likely to be available in public library settings, and unfortunately for everyone a lot of the very best reference sources are still in print.
-- phoebe
* I say this as someone who has spent a lot of time trying to reference Wikipedia articles, on all sorts of topics, using the full arsenal of a good university library.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
Ec
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource community.
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource community.
RSOL = Royal Society Online?
Carcharoth
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource community.
WTF? =-O
We seem to be labouring under some misapprehension. This doesn't at all sound like the kind of thing I would do.
For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]
Ec
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
Ec
This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they are a part of the problem.
Nathan
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they are a part of the problem.
I've always aspired to be part of the problem.
I welcome such community affirmations that I have, in fact, arrived.
In all seriousness - it's Christmas, people. Put the swear words down and go drink more eggnog.
Hah, the eggnog might be part of the problem. ;)
On 12/26/08, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
This thread has been successfully hijacked by a tangent.
Chalk up another good idea wrecked by bickering and side issues.
But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they are a part of the problem.
I've always aspired to be part of the problem.
I welcome such community affirmations that I have, in fact, arrived.
In all seriousness - it's Christmas, people. Put the swear words down and go drink more eggnog.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
But since half the people involved complain about "not being able to get anything done on Wikipedia" now we can politely explain to them that they are a part of the problem.
Nathan
Sorry to jump in so late in the thread... At least in my experience, it's very easy for editors without the subscriptions they need to get articles from other Wikipedians, and quickly.
Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could be to make better use of the systems we've already developed on our own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange
I think there are a lot of priorities for WMF funds that rank higher than buying institutional access to sources. Before we try to make Wikipedia more like a university this particular respect (journal access), we should improve the editing experience (socially and technically) so that it's a place where more editors will stay for 4 years. Giving editors less reason to rely on others (to obtain sources, in this case) may even be counterproductive to that end.
As someone with institutional access to many hard-to-find things, I know I get a warm feeling whenever I'm able to provide another editor with the source they were looking for. Those kinds of interactions, I think, keep me tied to the project more than work I do in my own little corner.
-Sage (User:Ragesoss)
On 12/27/08, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe a large (and free) part of the solution could be to make better use of the systems we've already developed on our own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange
I think there are a lot of priorities for WMF funds that rank higher than buying institutional access to sources.
You speak wisdom. This is the "real" objection to the idea of a WMF subscription to JSTOR. Real as in, very persuasive and if there's a reason why it won't happen, you hit the nail on the head.
Right now, I think for almost all of us in this thread, we have no idea what the WMF bankbook looks like, and we also have no clue what JSTOR's price would look like. So, those are two pretty huge unknowns in the equation.
If JSTOR's price is a sufficiently small fraction of the WMF budget, go for it. If JSTOR's price would be a substantial chunk of the budget, forget it. --
Although, if it turns out to be prohibitively expensive, the foundation, it's pr-peeps, and jimbo could still use the JSTOR access as a way to drum up funds. Any time someone complains about Wikipedia's accuracy, we could turn that around and say:
"Hey, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and complain, but if you think Wikipedia isn't up to snuff compared with other publications, that's because other publications have funds and we don't. Rather than complain that our quality is lacking, help us fix it by helping us get access to JSTOR and places like it." A glorified version of [[WP:SOFIXIT]].
Just anecdotally, I've met lots of people in academia who have seen cases where arguments like that are miraculously transformed into sudden funding opportunities-- whenever someone criticizes you, tell them what you need to do the job better, and ask them for help.
Alec
I've posted on this a few times, and have, as I work through it more, found the problem more and more glaring. As it stands, WP:NOR contradicts WP:NPOV.
Here's the problem - the clause that says that claims about primary sources that require specialist knowledge cannot be made without secondary sources.
Here's the problem - there is a very famous debate that went on over three essays between Jacques Derrida and John Searle. Searle's attack on Derrida - the second of these three essays - is clearly a significant point of view on Derrida, and NPOV requires reporting it. Furthermore, as it is a secondary source, it can be summarized with impunity, as there is no specialist knowledge rule on secondary sources.
Derrida's response is equally self-evidently a significant view, as Derrida responding to significant attacks is clearly something we need to report under NPOV. But Derrida's essay - which is long and technical - requires specialist knowledge to explain. Thus it cannot be summarized.
The real problem is that this is not an isolated case - any time there is a debate in an advanced, specialist topic, we are going to run into this problem - criticism can be summarized directly, while the subject's response to the criticism cannot. This is a flagrant violation of NPOV, stacking the deck in every single specialist topic on Wikipedia. This is positively disastrous for BLPs - poison pen critics can sandbag a subject left, right, and center, and if the matter is technical, the subject's responses often cannot be included in articles, or, if they can, can only be included inasmuch as they are discussed by others, while the critics are under no such restriction. Absurd, and clearly a violation of NPOV.
The prohibition on summaries of primary sources that require specialist knowledge absolutely has to be removed. It is, flat out, a violation of NPOV.
-Phil
The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last posts and your responses. Providing a direct link is a bit too much work this far from my computers.
I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred, and ready for whomever would accept them. Have for years. But it seems people are too busy bickering than to bother to take them.
I come back to this list after being absent while on the road for the last week to find myself being, effectively, a liar and and obstructionist because I expected people to be able to perform a one second search to find one of hundreds of thousands of PD-claimed-copyright documents in jstor; or because I think it would be prudent to work with universitiy libraries first before asking the wmf to spend hundreds of thousands of donor money.
If that's how thing are going to be run here- then so be it- No need to expend any more of my effort. Enjoy.
On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource community.
WTF? =-O
We seem to be labouring under some misapprehension. This doesn't at all sound like the kind of thing I would do.
For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]
Ec
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The list is free to consult the wikisource list archives for my last posts and your responses. Providing a direct link is a bit too much work this far from my computers.
I have the full set of out of copyright ptrsol papers is djvu, ocred, and ready for whomever would accept them. Have for years. But it seems people are too busy bickering than to bother to take them.
I come back to this list after being absent while on the road for the last week to find myself being, effectively, a liar and and obstructionist because I expected people to be able to perform a one second search to find one of hundreds of thousands of PD-claimed-copyright documents in jstor; or because I think it would be prudent to work with universitiy libraries first before asking the wmf to spend hundreds of thousands of donor money.
If it's too much for you as the person making this claim to provide a direct link, then it's clearly also too much for me to waste time going through archives from years ago looking for phantom material which I don't believe to exist.
It's nice that you have all this material already in djvu format, but are the people who are currently trying to convert the same material from pdf to djvu aware of this? Wouldn't it be more constructive at this stage to simply add a comment to the current Scriptorium thread, letting the people who are now working on this material that this is available? Griping on this Wiki-en mailing list about some mistaken belief that you were not allowed to upload it years ago doesn't do much to advance anything.
You are being entirely too thin-skinned when you elevate a claim that you have a faulty recall of old events into an accusation of lying. I have no idea at all about what occasioned your comment about obstructionism.
Working with university libraries is just fine for those of us who are associated with a university, but please don't imagine that the rest of us have the same academic sinecure as you. What's more, a simple discussion about exploring the possibilities and price of working with JSTOR and others is still far removed from a proposal to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Ec
On 12/26/08, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I pulled all the rsol archives some years ago but when I tried to submit the pd works to wikisource *you* blew me off Ray. I still have them if anyone feels like fighting it out with the wikisource community.
WTF? =-O
We seem to be labouring under some misapprehension. This doesn't at all sound like the kind of thing I would do.
For the latest round of discussion see [[Wikisource:Scriptorium#Royal Society Digital Archive only for 3 months FREE]]
Ec
On 12/24/08, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So what happens when our editors start using their access to copy public domain works hijacked by JSTOR into Wikisource when the contract Wikimedia has with JSTOR forbids that activity? Will Wikimedia tell its contributors that they can't copy these indisputably public domain works into Wikisource?
It may tell them to, but it can't enforce that. Some Wikisourcerors are already downloading something similar from the Royal Society Digital Archives, which recently allowed a 3-month free access.
We can easily argue that we own a paper copy of the work More interesting though would be some sort of argument that those sections of a contract which hijack copyrights on PD works are invalid as contrary to public policy. Alternatively, to what extent does a contract between WMF and another corporation such as JSTOR bind volunteer contributors.
Ec
Nathan wrote:
It's a pretty neat idea. I think we should start with trying to get access to JSTOR. Gmaxwell's objection is one that we should, I think, leave aside. JSTOR access for Wikimedia editors would be quite handy, although I'm not sure how many could use it or would avail themselves of it were the opportunity publicized.
We should avoid general assumptions about any group of people, including ours. For instance, either that many editors have access to these resources already (I do, but I see no reason to believe "many" do), or that "most of academia" has any particular opinion of Wikimedia and its projects.
Perhaps this suggestion was posted to the wrong list - foundation-l would be more appropriate, since I don't think individual editors should be approaching organizations like JSTOR without the prior notice and approval of the Foundation.
You raise an important point about the Foundation being the one to seek access. The usefulness would be across the projects, not just for English Wikipedia. In Wikisource no more than a dozen would likely need access at any given time. Understandably, we wouldn't be duplicating the protected material that they host, but more than once I have run into their brick wall when I was only trying to find some basic information about an author hosted by Wikisource.
Ec