Hoi, The problem with Elsevier is that it requires a project for people to gain access. With PLOS we do not need to partner because everybody can have all the access that they need.
The biggest problem that I see with many sources is that many of them are no longer valid. They point they make has been refuted and sometimes even worse it has been proven a fraud. That is the bigger problem with closed source. You have to pay to read what it says and only then you may realise that it is no good. In the mean time the puffery goes on. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2016 at 16:57, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi wrote:
Hi Alex and all,
I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
- TeemuOn 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson astinson@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe
that
our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open, or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible. We share the open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our
position.
As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80
accounts
so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to over 500 accounts via JSTOR.
These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and
cultivate,
because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their
business
practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as
long
as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks
at
least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our projects.
However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going
to
be part of research into how our https change last June created dark traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be
able
to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials.
As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would
be
happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our
research
processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established institutions that work within the existing system to help create
long-term
stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to
figure
out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing academic work.[4]
As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC.
Cheers,
Alex Stinson Project Manager The Wikipedia Library
[1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4 [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing.
For
example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the output of those academics:
http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanit...
. Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from making Open Access, as a long-term solution for academic publishing.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Shani shani.even@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@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@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@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Teemu Leinonen http://teemuleinonen.fi +358 50 351 6796 Media Lab http://mlab.uiah.fi Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe