I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that works. What I think is that we don't put the same effort indoing something with the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based.
Two pop up in my mind: the Signalling Open Access project, aimed to put an icon aside every reference in Wikipedia, to signal if the article is OA or closed. Ask Daniel Mietchen for updates.
The other one is the possibility of uploading thousands of articles in wikisource, directly in HTML. Remember, we have Wikipedia Zero: putting stuff onWikisource means having a free digital library to everyone. In the recent Wikisource conference in Vienna we talked about that too, and rhere is an ongoing discussion in the English Wikisource.
Both these two projects could have a huge impact on open access and in general for our mission, but they rely on the good will and free time of few individuals, and have done for years now.
Aubrey Il 01/dic/2015 03:54 "John Mark Vandenberg" jayvdb@gmail.com ha scritto:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
May we actually stop having anything with these pest?
I dont believe we can stop using closed access journals, as that would reduce the quality of our projects, but we can use links to them as an opportunity to educate the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28idea_lab%29#Solidari...
However WMF should discontinue its relationship with Elsevier and Taylor & Francis via the 'Wikipedia Library'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Taylor_%26_Francis
-- John Vandenberg
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe