Wikimedia is in the position to work with many institutions not
committed to open access, free software etc. That's not the problem.
The position of Wikimedia movement is in such position that it's not
just about free knowledge, but about common good of the whole
humanity. And (the most of) legitimate representatives of humanity are
outside open access, free content etc.
I've followed the issue of linguists vs. Elsevier. Although I don't
know the whole background, I could say that that particular
confrontation is not something we should react differently than giving
more prominence to open access journals.
However, this issue is a game changer. Elsevier attacks a member of
our own wider movement. And we are the only entity inside of that
wider movement capable to make a proper response. Which means that we
have to do that, as our responsibility in particular is related to our
wider movement.
If we send clear message, anyone willing to make that kind of pressure
to any entity inside of our wider movement would have to have in mind
that we will respond, as well.
If we fail to send such messages in the situation like this one, we
gamble with being perceived as weak.
As per John, it's not about removing references, as we are doing our
job and closed-source journals are one of the valid sources of
information. However, it is about formal relations between Wikimedia
Foundation, other Wikimedia organizations and Elsevier.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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>
_______________________________________________
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>