I dont'know if the subject has been already debated in the past, but we are going to publish on wikisource a thesis written by a fellow wikipedian who graduated last week in sociology. The nice thing about this is that the thesis is ON wikipedia (specifically the italian edition).
Since we haven't found any other thesis published on wikisource, we asked ourselves if a thesis can be published there. On http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F is stated that "Original writings by a Wikipedia contributor are excluded" (but given the subject of the thesis we think everyone will close an eye). Still a thesis is a document, that has a certain degree of academic recognition.
The question is: wouldn't be nice (and useful) if wikisource could work also as a repository for thesis?
Snowdog.
Le Wednesday 13 October 2004 16:24, rfrangi@coopetition.it a écrit :
I dont'know if the subject has been already debated in the past, but we are going to publish on wikisource a thesis written by a fellow wikipedian who graduated last week in sociology. The nice thing about this is that the thesis is ON wikipedia (specifically the italian edition).
Since we haven't found any other thesis published on wikisource, we asked ourselves if a thesis can be published there. On http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F is stated that "Original writings by a Wikipedia contributor are excluded" (but given the subject of the thesis we think everyone will close an eye). Still a thesis is a document, that has a certain degree of academic recognition.
The question is: wouldn't be nice (and useful) if wikisource could work also as a repository for thesis?
Yes, IMO, this kind is document has its place in Wikisource.
Snowdog.
Yann
rfrangi@coopetition.it a écrit:
I dont'know if the subject has been already debated in the past, but we are going to publish on wikisource a thesis written by a fellow wikipedian who graduated last week in sociology. The nice thing about this is that the thesis is ON wikipedia (specifically the italian edition).
Since we haven't found any other thesis published on wikisource, we asked ourselves if a thesis can be published there. On http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F is stated that "Original writings by a Wikipedia contributor are excluded" (but given the subject of the thesis we think everyone will close an eye). Still a thesis is a document, that has a certain degree of academic recognition.
The question is: wouldn't be nice (and useful) if wikisource could work also as a repository for thesis?
Snowdog.
I would say yes. ant
rfrangi@coopetition.it wrote:
I dont'know if the subject has been already debated in the past, but we are going to publish on wikisource a thesis written by a fellow wikipedian who graduated last week in sociology. The nice thing about this is that the thesis is ON wikipedia (specifically the italian edition).
Since we haven't found any other thesis published on wikisource, we asked ourselves if a thesis can be published there. On http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource%3F is stated that "Original writings by a Wikipedia contributor are excluded" (but given the subject of the thesis we think everyone will close an eye). Still a thesis is a document, that has a certain degree of academic recognition.
The question is: wouldn't be nice (and useful) if wikisource could work also as a repository for thesis?
Speaking as a Wikisource admin and as the person who wrote most of that policy page I think that I can safely say that such a thesis can be accomodated. That rule is primarily there to forestall those individuals who are out to promote their own pet theories or bad poetry that has never been published anywhere. Perhaps they could be accomodated at Wikibooks, but since I have very little involvement with that project I cannot speak for them.
In this case I would tend to interpret the submission of the thesis to the appropriate university authorities as a form of prior publication.
Including the thesis will leave it subject to the FDL rules for copyright purposes. The submission should include enough information to legally identify you as the owner of the copyright so that we know that you have the authority to release the text under a free distribution licence.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Speaking as a Wikisource admin and as the person who wrote most of that policy page I think that I can safely say that such a thesis can be accomodated. That rule is primarily there to forestall those individuals who are out to promote their own pet theories or bad poetry that has never been published anywhere. Perhaps they could be accomodated at Wikibooks, but since I have very little involvement with that project I cannot speak for them.
In this case I would tend to interpret the submission of the thesis to the appropriate university authorities as a form of prior publication.
Including the thesis will leave it subject to the FDL rules for copyright purposes. The submission should include enough information to legally identify you as the owner of the copyright so that we know that you have the authority to release the text under a free distribution licence.
Ec
That's wat I wanted to hear! Now my idea is: since thesis are a valuable resource for students, I think that maybe we shuold incentivate the use of wikisource as a thesis repository, so that students have a place where they can find works related to their studies. Also we will give a chance to have translations of the thesis in different languages (the one we are going to insert will be (slowly) translated from italian to english), which.would be interesting in particular for works on humanistic subjects, that are more likely to be treated with different perspectives in different cultures.
Snowdog (A colege drop-out, working hard for a "honoris causa").
Ray Saintonge wrote:
In this case I would tend to interpret the submission of the thesis to the appropriate university authorities as a form of prior publication.
Agreed. This is a nice "bright line" rule that won't get us into endless debates with physics cranks. We can still omit, for example, self-published books.
--Jimbo
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
In this case I would tend to interpret the submission of the thesis to the appropriate university authorities as a form of prior publication.
Agreed. This is a nice "bright line" rule that won't get us into endless debates with physics cranks. We can still omit, for example, self-published books.
Hopefully it won't come up much, but it's actually very hard these days to determine what a "real" publisher is. There's a *lot* of even widely-distributed books that are put out by fairly small publishers and then distributed through a larger network, almost in the same way that self-published books are. To use this example, most university publishers are essentially vanity presses---apart from the big ones like MIT Press and Oxford University Press, the rest are simply imprints that, if they're published at all, are done on a pay-to-publish basis.
If you google a bit this comes up a lot because book reviewers who have a "no self-published books" policy to cut down on the cruft they have to sift through are finding it increasingly hard to actually define what they mean by that policy...
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
In this case I would tend to interpret the submission of the thesis to the appropriate university authorities as a form of prior publication.
Agreed. This is a nice "bright line" rule that won't get us into endless debates with physics cranks. We can still omit, for example, self-published books.
Hopefully it won't come up much, but it's actually very hard these days to determine what a "real" publisher is. There's a *lot* of even widely-distributed books that are put out by fairly small publishers and then distributed through a larger network, almost in the same way that self-published books are. To use this example, most university publishers are essentially vanity presses---apart from the big ones like MIT Press and Oxford University Press, the rest are simply imprints that, if they're published at all, are done on a pay-to-publish basis.
I'm counting upon this being an infrequent occurence. The bulk of things being put into Wikisource are Public Domain documents. With more recent things we often need more discussion on copyright issues. Of course the cranks are only too willing to license their material because they want all the exposure they can get, and in the context of such questions there is an opportunity to squeeze out the self-published. If a few get through because a university press has acted as a vanity publisher, I don't think it will ever be enough to worry much about.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org