On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen
<daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a
valid option, though
encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is.
One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the "OA-ness" of
cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of
the Signpost (most recent example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recen…
).
So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers
that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they
publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA
icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germa…
. Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially
in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA,
others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses.
<snip>
Daniel
THIS!
I agree with what was said before that it would be technically (and
intellectually) difficulty to boycott links to particular sources from
Wikipedias. I think it would be fantastic if we could *promote* Open Access
sources in our references - see Daniel's link to the Signpost (above) for a
good example. If we could overcome some technical difficulties (Daniel
describes some above). This would be a positive action to support OA rather
than a punitive action against other less open (but still legal) publishers
of Reliable Sources. It would also help promote the idea of OA sources in
the general public.
Ideally this could be done automatically by compiling a list of "OA
compliant" sources and automatically adding in the OA icon to a footnote
whenever the relevant citation code is called.
and Wikipedia articles about journals often have OA information in the infobox.
e.g. our most cited journal, J. Biol. Chem., is 12 month delay OA