I don't know if it's the case, but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott, of course). But "universal access to universal knowledge" is pretty Open Access to me, and this think is taking momentum, hopefully will be effective. Aubrey 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie <derby_pie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded research studies, which I'm quite pleased about: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-ac… Maybe Daniel knows if there are any general position papers about how OA in general benefits Wikimedia projects? Re: the Elsevier journal boycott, I've been following this fairly closely out of professional and personal interest -- it's not strictly a protest in favor of OA, but rather a protest around several issues related to how Elsevier handles and charges for journal content, including supporting restrictions, like the research works act. It is true that Elsevier is not especially worse than several other big publishers, but they have a big name and a long history of unfriendly moves to the library & academic community which make them perhaps an easier target. What's interesting about the boycott is that a) it's grown very quickly, with several thousand people signing in the past couple weeks; and b) it's a lot of prominent researchers from a wide variety of institutions. What gives this boycott power is not institutional support but rather individual researchers and scholars, who provide both the content and the labor in scientific publishing, saying that they were not interested in working with Elsevier. If enough people say that and follow through, Elsevier's entire business model falls apart. -- phoebe

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Kat Walsh <kat(a)mindspillage.org> wrote: Right! I forgot about that. Thanks, Kat. -- phoebe

If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting closed journals (i.e. they are not publishing in them). -- David Richfield [[:en:User:Slashme]] +27718539985

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:53:23PM -0500, Gwern Branwen wrote: Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort? (Akin to WikiNews in operation, perhaps?) sincerely, Kim Bruning

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. What else can we do? Well, the usual stuff: assessing and improving existing articles around OA and starting new ones, or putting OA materials to new uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access has recently been started with precisely these goals. We can also highlight content that we reuse from OA sources, as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Open_Access_File_of_the_Day , or we can see to OA-related topics or files being more systematically considered for the various options of featuring. As for any other article, the entries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier should strive to neutrally state the facts - they speak for themselves. That said, I am certainly supportive of closer interaction between the OA and Wikimedia communities - not by chance one of the core aspects of my Wikimedian in Residence project ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science ). Such interaction can take place in multiple ways, e.g. via an Open-Access policy of the Foundation (currently being developed by RCOM at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-ac… ),  via removal of weasel words in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Criticism , via collaboration with scholarly journals (e.g. as per http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Op… ), via translation of OA-related articles (cf. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/To… ), or by mutually showcasing OA an wiki matters at wiki and OA events (e.g. as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recen… or http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science/Even… ) . With regards to boycotting Elsevier, I do not think that would easily fall within the mission of the Foundation (or even individual chapters), but of course, individual Wikimedians are free to join. I haven't joined the anti-Elsevier pledge and have no intention to do so anytime soon, for two main reasons: - Elsevier is neither the only nor the fiercest opponent of Open Access, just the biggest one - I have already signed a (rather moderate) Open Access pledge last year (cf. http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2 ) and a more strict one last month (cf. http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/451 ). In both cases, it applies to all non-OA publishing rather than just one publisher, and in the latter case, I specifically mention compatibility with reuse on Wikipedia as a criterion for me to get involved. Stressing the reuse aspects of OA is an area that I can well imagine being championed by the Wikimedia community or by the Foundation: Much of Gold OA is reusable on Wikipedia (e.g. all PLoS or Hindawi journals but not Nature Communications or Scientific Reports, nor Living Reviews or Scholarpedia), some of Green OA (e.g. all of Nature Precedings, some of arXive, though not visibly so) and basically nothing of traditionally published materials (exceptions being the odd human genome paper released directly into the Public Domain). It is thus not surprinsing to see that a ranking of publishers by number of pages on Wikimedia Commons that mention one of their DOIs sees several OA publishers ahead of Elsevier and other large non-OA publishers (cf. http://toolserver.org/~dartar/cite-o-meter/?commons=1 ; prototype; loads slowly and is not entirely up to date). I am involved in work on a tool that automatically uploads to Commons audio and video files from suitably licensed OA articles (cf. http://wir.okfn.org/2012/01/18/project-introduction-open-access-media-impor… ). OA publishers - namely PLoS - have been pushing the idea of openly tracking the reuse of scholarly materials (cf. http://article-level-metrics.plos.org/ ), and on-wiki reuse is one of the components of interest currently being worked on (cf. http://total-impact.org/collection/MqAnvI ). Daniel -- http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:30 AM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote: We have lists of journal usage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journ… 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Biological_Chemistry -- John Vandenberg

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote: I had a first shot at it but it doesn't work as expected, even though basically identical templates run just fine at another MediaWiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Fou… . Any hints welcome. Daniel

-- http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:56 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks - I took one of the workarounds you pointed to, so http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandbox&… now does what I wanted it to do. Sure, though the discussion we are having here on the mailing list looks like a good preparation for that. I think the minimal variant that would make sense is just the flagging of OA (of whatever kind) by way of the orange padlock. In the demo, I have added in the CC logos for the license being used by that publisher. This makes sense only for the rather few publishers (and perhaps repositories) that have all their content under a CC license (and preferably the same license for all articles). I do think it makes sense to consider adding "license" as an additional field to citation templates, but I am not convinced the icons (particularly at the size in the demo) are the way to go. If we go that way, we could also use doi-based (or similar) tools to determine the default for a publisher or outlet, and allow it to be overwritten by entering a different value in "license" (which would be especially useful for hybrid journals but requires a lot of manual work). I have also added the grey padlock for closed access (i.e. for cases when the DOi provides no information about any potential OA-ness of the reference at hand), and question marks to signal the need for a check. I am not yet convinced we should make wide-spread use of the grey padlock icon, and the question marks could be replaced by something more similar to existing maintenance templates. Yes, but much of the OAD would be considered OR, whereas the Catalogue serves - amongst other things - to facilitate the transfer of suitable OAD information onto Wikimedia projects. Thanks and cheers, Daniel

2012/2/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org> Hi Lodewijk, thanks for the engaging question ;-) Boycotting non-OA journals is not what I had in mind (as others explained), here the aim is to point as Elsevier as an example of a wicked system. Free knowledge could benefit from a renewed scholarly publishing world, in which every research would be open to the public to be read and studied, and the datasets of that research would be open to be tested again. Scientific research is the cutting/bleeding edge of human inquiry, and you perfectly understand how it would be important to have results of that inquiry to be available to anyone who wants to access it. This is more difficult. I don't have many concrete ideas, but if Wikimedia related scholars could add their name to the boycott list, and WMF would say that clear and loud, that would be a small but significant step. Many others could follow. Boycott citations to important articles or journals is not really a good move (it's complicated): better would be for any editor to check if there is an open access article which provide similar results, but this would be very time-consuming, I think, and not always effective. movements wants "science" results open and available for all. Traditional copyright is not the "main enemy": the enemy is a publishing system that exploit the work of researchers (which write, review, and buy articles) and public funds (through universities and libraries) with a very too high profits. The system is wicked because there is a monopoly of few huge publishers which decide prices of journals, which force you to buy journals you don't want (the "bundle system"). Moreover, the are the Impact Factor issues, and the fact that these publishers agree with SOPA, ACTA, etc. I would like also to hear from Daniel, our beloved Wikimedian In Residence for Open Access :-) Aubrey