Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them
into the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most
closed sources.
Vito
Il 14/02/2016 22:13, Robert Fernandez ha scritto:
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts
from Elsevier to
Wikipedia editors. This was the subject of some debate last September.
(Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Edito…).
I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
abandon this arrangement.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni
<zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As much as I'd **love** to see that,
I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
There is nothing
risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
projects.
--
Milos
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>