On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
volunteer good will.
Just want to point out that the WMF has an Open Access policy
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Open_access_policy>. This policy does
not immediately impact the current discussion since it's focused on
where/how research supported by the Foundation should be published, but
it's a strong step in the right direction.
I personally think that we are making a big mistake
thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
You are not alone. We live in an ecosystem and our long term success
depends on the success of others in this ecosystem, such as the OA
movement.
Leila
--
Leila Zia
Research Scientist
Wikimedia Foundation
Aubrey
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We have the purpose of providing free access to
information, information
from any publicly accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
having a connection to a major university library. Now that we do have
it,
at least some of this is accessible to at least
some active editors, who
can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
make
it freely accessible to the world. That's
enough justification.
If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
available,
our role would be very limited. The existence of
restrictions on access
to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
system
is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We
do this in multiple
ways.
Among them is providing an example of open
publishing; among them is
advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
what will be best for the encyclopedia.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Shani,
>
> This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
last
year and
directly addresses this issue:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
~ Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani" <shani.even(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
on
> the issue.
>
> Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
>
> Shani.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
wrote:
> As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
(from
> > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
posts
and
> discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
(which
> is certainly an important piece.
>
> A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
been
> a
> > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
and
> > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > (entities
> > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> this
> > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
that
> >
future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> >
> > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
overturn
> > an
> > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > volunteers
> > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract:
those
who
> > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
and
> > are
> > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked
in
> > with
> > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
relation
> with
> > > > them."
> > > >
> > > > This was debated extensively last September. The opinion of
many,
> >
> including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be
to
the
> > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to
improve
> the
> > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by
withdrawing
> > > those resources.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you
should
> > > not.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Gerard,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
relation
with
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>