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(a)gmail.com> ha
scritto:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Milos Rancic
<millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
May we actually stop having anything with these
pest?
http://custodians.online/
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#Solidar…
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>