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no longer valid.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(a)aalto.fi>
wrote:
Hi Alex and all,
I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS?
https://www.plos.org
- Teemu
On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson
<astinson(a)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-humani…
. 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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
> the issue.
>
> Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
>
> Shani.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
(from
>> the various communication channels --
wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts
>> and
>> discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
(which
>> is certainly an important piece.
>>
>> A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
been
a
>> good one, there may also have been better
ways to communicate it -- and
>> specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
(entities
>> like) Elsevier could use around the
Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
this
>> was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library
staff, and I have no doubt that
>> future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
>>
>> I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
overturn
an
>> existing contract. Please note also that
at least six Wikimedia
volunteers
>> would be impacted if Wikimedia were to
renege on its contract: those
who
>> have gained access to Elsevier Science
Direct through the program, and
are
>> presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a
result. Have you checked in
with
>> them, or looked at their work, Milos?
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
>>
>> -Pete
>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
with
>>> them."
>>>
>>> This was debated extensively last September. The opinion of many,
>>> including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to
the
>>> encyclopedia and providing editors
and readers the resources to
improve
>> the
>>> encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
>>> those resources.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>>>> <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should
>> not.
>>>> The
>>>>> WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
>>>>>
>>>>> No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Gerard,
>>>>
>>>> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>>>>
>>>> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
with
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Milos
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>> ,
>>>>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--------------------------------------------------
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>