On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an overwhelming consensus.
I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF and Wikimedia movement.
Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.
Actually, they did...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:JSTOR&oldid=4855639...