[Foundation-l] "stumble upon" in wikimedia? citation collection, where researchers want to be included in future?

[Jane Tierney]

Hi all,

IMO there are no restrictions for citing an article originally  
published in a commercial journal. Scientists do this all the time  
within their own works, for academic purposes. Commercial journals  
want this in order to drive interest/traffic to their sites. However,  
most commercial academic publishers are extremely expensive. Elsevier  
publications, for example, operate at up to 38% profit, as discussed  
in WSJ and Wash Post. There are ALSO many non-profit/academic/free  
citation databases which provide these same scientific and academic  
articles. Some considerations of providing links to cited articles:

1. When a link is provided to a commercial publisher/journal, there is  
no assurance the link location will not change over time. Link  
resolvers are used to manage this issue, these are onerous and  
expensive to buy and run. Providing a DOI, digital object identifier,  
is the cleanest way to assure you are providing a consistent reference  
to the item you are citing.
2. Any work funded by the US Government, is licensed by the government  
to be used "for government purposes." There is some intra-governmental  
debate over this, some arguing that the governments' stated mission is  
to make all federally funded research results publicly available (to  
the public, not just to commercial subscribers.) Others arguing that  
commercial publication should be protected and encouraged for  
providing peer-review process. NIH is currently embroiled in an  
attempt by Congressmen Conyers to repeal legislation enacted in  
January, 2008, requiring open-access to NIH funded research results.  
Here is a link to further info on that: http://depaullaw.typepad.com/library/2008/10/publisher-backl.html 
. In addition: Cornell University has some good information on this  
subject:http://www.library.cornell.edu/scholarlycomm/openaccessday.html
3. There are ample open-access resources where this material is hosted  
that duplicate commercial publishers, where the links would be more  
stable and free from copyright or other restrictions. Some of these  
are: Office of Scientific & Technical Information: http: //www.science.gov 
, PubMed Central: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/, arXiv: http://arxiv.org/ 
, California Digital Library:http://repositories.cdlib.org/escholarship/

I hope this addresses the line of discussion.

Voxhumana


On Nov 28, 2008, at 7:00 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:

> On 11/28/08, THURNER rupert <rupert.thurner at wikimedia.ch> wrote:
>> some sites to cite an article about medical visualization [2]. when
>> looking at it i noticed:
>> * that it is published in a cc-2.5 licensed journal
>> * that there is a possibility to enter links from facebook, stumble  
>> upon,
>> ...
>> * that there is no link to do make a reference in wiki*
>>
>> would it make sense that a wikimedia page allows referencing such an
>> article? the functions of such a page could be:
>> * enter it in a (not yet existing) references library (bibtex or  
>> whatever)
>> * add it to a portal talk page selected by the user (like medicine)
>> * add it to project selected by the user (like wpedia, wversity, ...)
>>
>> imo the advantages would be that on one hand quality may rise through
>> better citations, on the other hand having a citation library where
>> researchers in future want to be and need to be.
>
> It would be easy use javascript to fill out a {{cite news}} template
> or whatever based on the url parameters. However the intersection of
> "sites we want to newcomers to easily link to" and "sites which take
> us seriously enough to provide a url for doing so" might be smaller
> than we'd hope.
>
> —C.W.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jane Tierney
jetierney at mac.com