+1 to Aubrey's words
2016-02-15 7:59 GMT+01:00 Andrea Zanni zanni.andrea84@gmail.com:
As much as I love Jake and Alex's work, and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge that "playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything. Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they play along, keeping the system alive and well.
Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.
As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for volunteer good will. I personally think that we are making a big mistake thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.
Aubrey
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information from any publicly accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those having a connection to a major university library. Now that we do have
it,
at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus
make
it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
If all we did was re-package information that was already freely
available,
our role would be very limited. The existence of restrictions on access to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this
system
is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple
ways.
Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is, what will be best for the encyclopedia.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <
keegan.wiki@gmail.com>
wrote:
Shani,
This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from
last
year and directly addresses this issue:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
~ Keegan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani" shani.even@gmail.com wrote:
Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
on
the issue.
Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
Shani.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth@gmail.com
wrote:
As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
(from
the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
posts
and
discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
(which
is certainly an important piece.
A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
been
a
good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
and
specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
(entities
like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
this
was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt
that
future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
overturn
an
existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
volunteers
would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract:
those
who
have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
and
are
presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked
in
with
them, or looked at their work, Milos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
wikigamaliel@gmail.com>
wrote:
"No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
relation
with
them."
This was debated extensively last September. The opinion of
many,
including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be
to
the
encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to
improve
the
encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by
withdrawing
those resources.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen > gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote: > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you
should
not.
> The > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier. > > > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on. > > Dear Gerard, > > You are again ignoring the point intentionally. > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any
relation
with
> them. > > Sincerely, > Milos > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe