On 17 April 2018 at 09:39, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Additionally I think it would be interesting to have some research done on which references are DISPLAYED or CLICKED the most on several Wikipedias. We know already which sources are cited the most, but on which sources do users hover their mouse the most? Can we also identify which statements are involved?
Absolutely not. Leave that kind of spying to advertising companies and three letter agencies. We have standards.
Finally I believe it would be that a tool to assess the openness
Look for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Open_access
/accessibility of the sources of any given article could be really interesting.
Would turn into an argument over definitions. For example is the Mabinogion accessible? Public domain, copies can be found on various websites but I don't speak welsh. Limiting it to English gets to the next problem. Is this accessible:
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2014/11/aa21621-13/aa21621-13.ht...
Its in English but I don't have a degree in physics.
Where there are more obvious limits it gets more complicated. You may be tempted to lump all paywalls together is it really fair to lump something that costs €1 for total access in with something that charges $40 for one article. Does the currency it charges in make a difference?
Books too have their fun aspects. Try automating judging the relative accessibility of Birmingham's Electric Dustcarts and 7000 years of jewelry.