Alex,
You hit the nail on the head (this time ;):
"we could somehow enhance research exchange, by creating a "college" for
our RX coordinators to join, to allow them to connect
with scholars and ask
for versions of papers"
accounts to better
enable Resource Exchange contributors to help others improve articles with
the best reliable sources.
To be used sparingly, when no better options available on open Web,
proprietary databases to which another Ref Desk regular might have access,
individual or institutional repositories, etc.
Convenience and courtesy enhanced: would speed RX turnaround and reduce all
editors' perceived need to email busy academic authors, wasting their time
(and possibly alienating them - "why didn't you look on my page at
Academia.edu?")
Citing pre-prints remains problematical. Still,
*pre-prints can be highly useful for what Wikipedia is highly useful for:
summarizing original research. *
Attribution &/or linkage are orthogonal issues, to be discussed. Current
practice is WL partner page provides partner attribution recommendations;
does not, can not, enforce individual editors' compliance.
Appreciate your enthusiasm, others' caution - we need both.
Best,
Paul.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Alex Stinson <sadads(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thats great Paul! I would love to know what the
"value add" would be of
access for our editors: even if it is just a matter of understanding the
value of search tool (or if we could somehow enhance research exchange, by
creating a "college" for our RX coordinators to join, to allow them to
connect with scholars and ask for versions of papers.
As you are probably aware, but I wanted to share with our listserv, our
pitch framework is at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Processes/Pit…
. This pitch is designed for conventional publishers, and we are still
looking for good models for Open Access publishers and Institutional
Repositories (for example, Jake and I met with PLOS the other week: and we
didn't have a clear sense of what we could use there support on, because
everything is open already).
Also as a bit of context,
Academia.edu has about 8,000 links on Wikipedia
already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500…
. So there is some latent demand somewhere for this. If anyone wants to
investigate who/how these are being used, that would be great, but as far
as I can tell, we don't have the tools for quick assignment of links to
users, or finding patterns (if you know someone who can build a tool like
that, there is a lot of potential use cases:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T102064).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:39 AM, James McArdle <
jmcardle(a)vic.chariot.net.au> wrote:
Dear WPL colleagues,
Thank you for responding to my query about making approaches to
Academia.edu. I really appreciate having sensible advice. Your feedback
indicates caution, and raises the possibility that there may be little to
be gained from an arrangement with them; I will go ahead and make queries,
especially about the legal side and the user agreement as would relate to
WPL access, but shall make no commitments. I'll bring their response back
to the list for consideration.
Regards,
James
James McArdle
User:Jamesmcardle
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:48:41 -0700
From: ahmed yousif <ashashyou(a)yahoo.com>
To: wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Library] Wikipedia-Library Digest, Vol 10,
Issue 5
Message-ID:
<1442342921.56119.BPMail_high_carrier(a)web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Just a hint.
Being a payable article does not mean that it is not open access.
My own experience is that some journals when submitting your article will
put a"time frame" for the article. For example 6 years, after that the
author can share the article unrestricted. So some authors upload thier
articles to
academia.edu.
Also there is now awealth of open access journals and of open access
articles in non-open access journals.
Regards,
Ahmed Shawky Mohammedin
User:ashashyou
------------------------------
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 3:04 PM EEST
wikipedia-library-request(a)lists.wikimedia.orgwrote:
Send Wikipedia-Library mailing list submissions to
wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-library
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikipedia-library-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikipedia-library-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-Library digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. OA (James McArdle)
2. Re: OA (Paul S. Wilson)
3. Re: OA (Paul S. Wilson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:24:29 +1000
From: James McArdle <jmcardle(a)vic.chariot.net.au>
To: "wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
<wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikipedia Library] OA
Message-ID: <639DC974-9E45-4F40-AFA5-38997664A455(a)vic.chariot.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi,
In relation to Open Access papers, I'm wondering if WPL has had dealings
with
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>? (I'm new to WPL). Their
website makes available papers across all disciplines by current academics
who are subscribed.
Outsiders can see a few recommended articles, but there is a wealth of
material hidden from them. I have contacts there as I am one of their
recommending editors.
Can you tell me from your experience, is it worthwhile exploring whether
of access can be provided to,or via, WPL for our users?
Regards,
James
James McArdle
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:27:41 -0500
From: "Paul S. Wilson" <paulscrawl(a)gmail.com>
To: Mailing list for the Wikipedia Library project
<wikipedia-library(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Library] OA
Message-ID:
<CAOVDCgMKw7VfrHrOmqimO97B+8fSXm40pfG8fc3LKX5GyPmtVA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Interesting question, James.
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> serves millions as a personal
repository for their academic
preprints (usually legal) and published versions (often not so) - the
question is, do we dare risk such when institutional depositories with
vetting of allowable content are readily available?
As an experiment, [[
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>]] article has a
cited reference to
paywalled content (footnote #11 as of today) to which I've appended a link
to the preprint version of the article on
academia.edu, noting "/*
Reception */ + "Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/> preprint" (with
differing pagination from
canonical published version; other editorial changes likely) of Thelwall &
Kousha (2012)".
Per
Academia.edu <http://academia.edu/>'s voluminous [
https://www.academia.edu/terms terms of
use], such "Member Content" is severely restricted.
Would be interested in gaining access to site content, if TWL can
negotiate
- or learn to live with - latter.
Paul S. Wilson
Research Coordinator
The Wikipedia Library
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-Library mailing list
Wikipedia-Library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-library
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-Library mailing list
Wikipedia-Library(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-library