I have an account but quite frankly I don't think I have used it. I thought it would be useful but since I live in DC I can just run to one of the Libraryes or the national archives. You are welcome to give mine to another user if they think they would get some use out of it.
Kumioko
--- On Tue, 3/15/11, Charles Paisley cpaisley@gmail.com wrote:
From: Charles Paisley cpaisley@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wikimediareference-l] [Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)] To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net, wikimediareference-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 2:49 PM
I have to concur with this opinion. I have one of the credo accounts. While I find it useful fact checking from time to time, there is simply not enough content to write anything resembling a comprehensive article on any topic I regularly edit. Its primary value is for basic fact checking and lookup, which would be helpful to content reviewers, but not really to article builders. We had this discussion on-site here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#Usage
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks
on Wikimedia's fundraiser)
From: "Andreas Kolbe" jayen466@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, March 15, 2011 6:32 am
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- On Tue, 15/3/11, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com
I've been involved with open
access journals as a professional
activity from the start of the movement, long before I
joined
Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.
Though there are
almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them are
either very
small or very unimportant, and in almost all fields
of study, none or
almost none of the important journals are open access:
This is my experience too; thanks for pointing it out.
No important journals at all in chemistry are open access,
Almost none in physics
Almost none in geology
Almost none in ecology & evolution
A few in molecular & cell biology
A few only in biomedical sciences
None in psychology
Almost none in the social sciences or the humanities
Almost none in engineering and applied science
A few in medicine
<snip>
At this point, there is no academic field of study
whatsoever where an
adequate article could be written using only open access
material.
This is of course a very limiting thing for access to
information not
just for us, but for the world in general, and the WMF
projects should
certainly cooperate as closely as possible with the
forces working
for open access, but the suggestion that it is possible to
limit to or
even prefer open acces material is incompatible with the
policy on
using the best available sources.
Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of contacting
universities and content database providers and inviting them to support
Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the
benefit -- to them -- that increased citation of high-quality publications
would potentially make these publications visible to a larger audience?
Is this something the Foundation would consider pursuing?
Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediareference-l mailing list
Wikimediareference-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediareference-l