Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-...
As much as I'd **love** to see that, I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF, supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable BUT legal operation like Elsevier. If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
Aubrey
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-...
-- 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
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I'd **love** to see that, I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF, supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable BUT legal operation like Elsevier. If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects.
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September. (Here's my take on that debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editor...). I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to abandon this arrangement.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I'd **love** to see that, I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF, supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier. If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects.
-- 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
Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various proprietary sources of information: http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/
On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open Access publishing advocates.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] (I convened and moderated the panel)
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September. (Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editor... ). I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to abandon this arrangement.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I'd **love** to see that, I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF, supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier. If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects.
-- 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
I watched this remotely, good stuff. Everyone seemed to be in basic agreement on the issues.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various proprietary sources of information: http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/
On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open Access publishing advocates.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] (I convened and moderated the panel)
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September. (Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editor...
). I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to abandon this arrangement.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <
zanni.andrea84@gmail.com>
wrote:
As much as I'd **love** to see that, I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF, supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier. If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects.
-- 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
Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them into the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed sources.
Vito
Il 14/02/2016 22:13, Robert Fernandez ha scritto:
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September. (Here's my take on that debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editor...). I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to abandon this arrangement.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com wrote:
As much as I'd **love** to see that, I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF, supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier. If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar projects.
-- 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
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them into the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed sources.
Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's not valid excuse.
Hoi, 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. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 February 2016 at 22:52, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them
into
the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed sources.
Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's not valid excuse.
-- 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
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
Hi Milos,
that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an overwhelming consensus.
I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
Lodewijk
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:01 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
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an overwhelming consensus.
I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF and Wikimedia movement.
Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.
Until few months ago, connection with Elsevier could have been tolerated as edgy, but useful. However, we are now in completely different situation. I hear *our* friends are under high pressure because of this and I just hope all of them are more emotionally tough than Aaron was.
Now, hypocritical people all over Wikimedia movement think it's fine to tolerate such connection. Because it doesn't hurt us and they are giving us cookies. It hurts just people belonging to our wider movement, whom we accidentally know. Why should we care about them?
Besides being legally obligated or having overwhelming consensus, I suppose we have some values, some moral obligations and backbone.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an overwhelming consensus.
I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF and Wikimedia movement.
Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.
Actually, they did...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:JSTOR&oldid=4855639...
"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
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
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
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@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
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@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@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
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
As much as I love Jake and Alex's work, and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge that "playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything. Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they play along, keeping the system alive and well.
Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.
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. I personally think that we are making a big mistake thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
Aubrey
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman dggenwp@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@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@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
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
-- 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
+1 to Aubrey's words
2016-02-15 7:59 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com:
As much as I love Jake and Alex's work, and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge that "playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything. Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they play along, keeping the system alive and well.
Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.
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. I personally think that we are making a big mistake thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
Aubrey
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman dggenwp@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@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@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
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
-- 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@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
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@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@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@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@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
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
-- 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@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
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
Hi Alex and all,
I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
- Teemu
On 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 --------------------------------------------------
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
Teemu, These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are about giving volunteers access to closed sources.
Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 7:58 AM, "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
On 15 February 2016 at 16:07, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Teemu, These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are about giving volunteers access to closed sources.
Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
Probably none. DOAJ on the other hand. I'm less convinced of DOAJ's financial soundness and its loss would be unfortunate. I've lost track of the current PR line over whatever we are currently calling the knowledge engine but if they are still going for the searching for reliable information line DOAJ would be an obvious place to deploy it (well mostly. This got into their database some how https://doaj.org/article/ebed893bfc3748d58695b2851c8270e9 ).
On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS?
I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial situation).
- Teemu -------------------------------------------------- Teemu Leinonen http://teemuleinonen.fi +358 50 351 6796 Media Lab http://mlab.uiah.fi Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture --------------------------------------------------
On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:08, Leinonen Teemu teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi wrote:
On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS?
I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial situation).
PLoS's 2014 income was $48.5 million: https://www.plos.org/about/financials/ I'm not sure that they're short of financial support...
Thanks, Mike
These seem like reasonable ideas, Teemu, and I don't in any way oppose them. It sounds, however, like they would go through different channels at WMF (such as the grants programs, and/or business partnerships) than the Elsevier and JSTOR programs did. Nothing wrong with that, but I wanted to be clear what it is we're talking about. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 11:08 AM, "Leinonen Teemu" teemu.leinonen@aalto.fi wrote:
On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS?
I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial situation).
- Teemu
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
Teemu,
As a followup:
We would love to be more aligned with Open Access publishers, but at this point, we have yet to find a demonstrably *repeatable* and *scalable* model of programming which we could promote to the entire movement and the Open Access community. When OA publishers already set the standard for Open knowledge, its less clear where to intervene (whereas, supporting GLAM, EDU, STEM and TWL outreach are about unlocking hard to find or closed access material for our community to take advantage of).
We do have a relationship with PLOS at WMF:
- We have been including contacts within PLOS on a collaboration to improve the Wikimedia ecosystem for citations and research, including looking at structured data in Wikimedia citations (something we are beginning to explore with Wikimedia Research, WikiProject X, WikiProject Source Metadata, WMDE, CrossRef and others). You should hear more about this in the next 4-6 months, as it becomes actual collaboration among these groups. - We are also reaching out to PLOS to participate in Dark Traffic Research: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy and they are further connected to us via our relationship with CrossRef. - We have had several calls with the PLOS partnerships team as The Wikipedia Library, and have seen a bit of stalled trying to figure out how both our community and theirs could benefit from a partnership more extensive than a WIR or volunteer led content drive, programatically -- and those kinds of individual leadership roles are outside what we develop at the WMF (see our criteria for new projects in Program Capacity and Learning: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program_Capacity_and_Learning) .
So the question is: what are the best ways to collaborate with Open Access publishers? And who can lead in these initiatives? We would be happy to mentor any volunteers or affiliates who want to develop these program models on behalf of the movement.
If you have ideas, we would encourage sharing them with WikiProject Open Access (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access), or on IdeaLab (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote: Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS?
I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is not so well known as the Wikipedia.
I wouldn’t be agains giving PLoS some financially supported, too, because they are like-minded non-profit organization with very similar mission as we have (and I am saying this without knowing anything about their financial situation).
- Teemu
Teemu Leinonen http://teemuleinonen.fi +358 50 351 6796 Media Lab http://mlab.uiah.fi Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture
Hoi, Yes it is intentionally. There is enough shit going on and we need not pile more on at this time. So move on. Thanks, GerardM
On 14 February 2016 at 23:01, 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@lists.wikimedia.org