[Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

[Daniel Mietchen]

--
http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen



On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:56 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem and potential solution are explained here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:OA-ness
Thanks - I took one of the workarounds you pointed to, so
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandbox&oldid=475001832
now does what I wanted it to do.

> However adding those icons everywhere is a big change, and it needs to
> be discussed on the project, e.g.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Citation
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPPRO
Sure, though the discussion we are having here on the mailing list
looks like a good preparation for that.

I think the minimal variant that would make sense is just the flagging
of OA (of whatever kind) by way of the orange padlock. In the demo, I
have added in the CC logos for the license being used by that
publisher. This makes sense only for the rather few publishers (and
perhaps repositories) that have all their content under a CC license
(and preferably the same license for all articles). I do think it
makes sense to consider adding "license" as an additional field to
citation templates, but I am not convinced the icons (particularly at
the size in the demo) are the way to go. If we go that way, we could
also use doi-based (or similar) tools to determine the default for a
publisher or outlet, and allow it to be overwritten by entering a
different value in "license" (which would be especially useful for
hybrid journals but requires a lot of manual work).

I have also added the grey padlock for closed access (i.e. for cases
when the DOi provides no information about any potential OA-ness of
the reference at hand), and question marks to signal the need for a
check.

I am not yet convinced we should make wide-spread use of the grey
padlock icon, and the question marks could be replaced by something
more similar to existing maintenance templates.

> btw, the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany Open Access Catalogue
> hosted on wikipedia seems to be replicating much of the work already
> being done on the OAD wiki.
>
> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page
Yes, but much of the OAD would be considered OR, whereas the Catalogue
serves - amongst other things - to facilitate the transfer of suitable
OAD information onto Wikimedia projects.

Thanks and cheers,

Daniel