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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM,
Gerard Meijssen
>> <gerard.meijssen(a)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(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>
_______________________________________________
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>