From fredbaud at fairpoint.net  Tue Mar 15 13:43:53 2011
From: fredbaud at fairpoint.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:43:53 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [Wikimediareference-l] [Foundation-l] Access to academic
 journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)
Message-ID: <45072.66.243.192.69.1300196633.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>

In connection with the Credo subscriptions Erik M?ller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation created the mailing list

Wikimediareference-l list run by erik at wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediareference-l

It has a little bit of discussion from March to July, 2010.

Let's all subscribe and bury this conversation away from public view so
we won't have to think about it any more.

I see they have a job description for a communications staff person to
coordinate discussions. This is a good example of what some way of
coordinating discussions is needed.

One thought though, there should be some mechanism for the donor to get
feedback on the use and usefulness of their donation by active and
successful Wikipedia editors if they are going to be satisfied that their
donation was useful and appreciated.

Fred


> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of
contacting
>> universities and content database providers and inviting them to support
>> Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the
benefit -- to them -- that increased citation of high-quality
>> publications
>> would potentially make these publications visible to a larger audience?
>>
>> Is this something the Foundation would consider pursuing?
>
> Credo offered 100 accounts last year as a charitable donation.
> Unfortunately they were given out on a first-come, first-served basis,
which meant editors who don't contribute content signed up for them, as
did those who already have access at home through their local libraries
-- though in fairness several withdrew their names once they realized
that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CREDO
>
> It would be wonderful if the Foundation could seek more of the same
kind of donation, particularly from databases giving access to
> academic journals (e.g. JSTOR), but being careful to make sure the
accounts went to editors who would use them the most, but who don't
currently have access. This kind of thing would really improve article
quality, and would make established editors feel their needs were being
looked after.
>
> Sarah
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>






From fredbaud at fairpoint.net  Tue Mar 15 14:02:16 2011
From: fredbaud at fairpoint.net (Fred Bauder)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 08:02:16 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: [Wikimediareference-l] [Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic
 journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)]
Message-ID: <42172.66.243.192.69.1300197736.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>

--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks
on Wikimedia's fundraiser)
From:    "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
Date:    Tue, March 15, 2011 6:32 am
To:      "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- On Tue, 15/3/11, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com>

> I've been involved with open?
> access journals? as a professional
> activity from the start of the movement, long before I
> joined
> Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.?
> Though there are
> almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them are
> either very
> small or very unimportant, and? in almost all fields
> of study, none or
> almost none of the important journals are open access:


This is my experience too; thanks for pointing it out.


> No important journals at all in chemistry are open access,
> Almost none in physics
> Almost none in geology
> Almost none in ecology & evolution
> A few in molecular & cell biology
> A few only in biomedical sciences
> None in psychology
> Almost none in the social sciences or the humanities
> Almost none in engineering and applied science
> A few in medicine
<snip>
> At this point, there is no academic field of study
> whatsoever where an
> adequate article could be written using only open access
> material.
> This is of course a very limiting thing for access to
> information not
> just for us, but for the world in general, and the WMF
> projects should
> certainly cooperate? as closely as possible with the
> forces working
> for open access, but the suggestion that it is possible to
> limit to or
> even prefer open acces material is incompatible with the
> policy on
> using the best available sources.


Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of contacting
universities and content database providers and inviting them to support
Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the
benefit -- to them -- that increased citation of high-quality publications
would potentially make these publications visible to a larger audience?

Is this something the Foundation would consider pursuing?

Andreas




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l




From cpaisley at gmail.com  Tue Mar 15 14:49:32 2011
From: cpaisley at gmail.com (Charles Paisley)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:49:32 -0400
Subject: [Wikimediareference-l] [Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to
 academic journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)]
In-Reply-To: <42172.66.243.192.69.1300197736.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
References: <42172.66.243.192.69.1300197736.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinuRJ5V5UfO7AvvBCOruP4aNM2z1jMyeAYYxMfi@mail.gmail.com>

I have to concur with this opinion. I have one of the credo accounts. While
I find it useful fact checking from time to time, there is simply not enough
content to write anything resembling a comprehensive article on any topic I
regularly edit. Its primary value is for basic fact checking and lookup,
which would be helpful to content reviewers, but not really to article
builders. We had this discussion on-site here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#Usage

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>wrote:

> --------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks
> on Wikimedia's fundraiser)
> From:    "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> Date:    Tue, March 15, 2011 6:32 am
> To:      "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --- On Tue, 15/3/11, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From: David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com>
>
> > I've been involved with open
> > access journals  as a professional
> > activity from the start of the movement, long before I
> > joined
> > Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.
> > Though there are
> > almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them are
> > either very
> > small or very unimportant, and  in almost all fields
> > of study, none or
> > almost none of the important journals are open access:
>
>
> This is my experience too; thanks for pointing it out.
>
>
> > No important journals at all in chemistry are open access,
> > Almost none in physics
> > Almost none in geology
> > Almost none in ecology & evolution
> > A few in molecular & cell biology
> > A few only in biomedical sciences
> > None in psychology
> > Almost none in the social sciences or the humanities
> > Almost none in engineering and applied science
> > A few in medicine
> <snip>
> > At this point, there is no academic field of study
> > whatsoever where an
> > adequate article could be written using only open access
> > material.
> > This is of course a very limiting thing for access to
> > information not
> > just for us, but for the world in general, and the WMF
> > projects should
> > certainly cooperate  as closely as possible with the
> > forces working
> > for open access, but the suggestion that it is possible to
> > limit to or
> > even prefer open acces material is incompatible with the
> > policy on
> > using the best available sources.
>
>
> Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of contacting
> universities and content database providers and inviting them to support
> Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the
> benefit -- to them -- that increased citation of high-quality publications
> would potentially make these publications visible to a larger audience?
>
> Is this something the Foundation would consider pursuing?
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediareference-l mailing list
> Wikimediareference-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediareference-l
>



-- 
Charles Paisley
812-267-4878
cpaisley at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediareference-l/attachments/20110315/ecea379b/attachment-0001.htm 

From thecognosguy at rocketmail.com  Wed Mar 16 01:46:38 2011
From: thecognosguy at rocketmail.com (Reese Langlois)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Wikimediareference-l] [Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to
	academic journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)]
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinuRJ5V5UfO7AvvBCOruP4aNM2z1jMyeAYYxMfi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <266309.21538.qm@web112313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

I have an account but quite frankly I don't think I have used it. I thought it would be useful but since I live in DC I can just run to one of the Libraryes or the national archives. You are welcome to give mine to another user if they think they would get some use out of it.

Kumioko

--- On Tue, 3/15/11, Charles Paisley <cpaisley at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Charles Paisley <cpaisley at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikimediareference-l] [Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)]
To: fredbaud at fairpoint.net, wikimediareference-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 2:49 PM

I have to concur with this opinion. I have one of the credo accounts. While I find it useful fact checking from time to time, there is simply not enough content to write anything resembling a comprehensive article on any topic I regularly edit. Its primary value is for basic fact checking and lookup, which would be helpful to content reviewers, but not really to article builders. We had this discussion on-site here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Credo_accounts#Usage


On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:

--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks

on Wikimedia's fundraiser)

From: ? ?"Andreas Kolbe" <jayen466 at yahoo.com>

Date: ? ?Tue, March 15, 2011 6:32 am

To: ? ? ?"Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"

<foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------



--- On Tue, 15/3/11, David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Goodman <dggenwp at gmail.com>



> I've been involved with open?

> access journals? as a professional

> activity from the start of the movement, long before I

> joined

> Wikipedia. There has been only limited success.?

> Though there are

> almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them are

> either very

> small or very unimportant, and? in almost all fields

> of study, none or

> almost none of the important journals are open access:





This is my experience too; thanks for pointing it out.





> No important journals at all in chemistry are open access,

> Almost none in physics

> Almost none in geology

> Almost none in ecology & evolution

> A few in molecular & cell biology

> A few only in biomedical sciences

> None in psychology

> Almost none in the social sciences or the humanities

> Almost none in engineering and applied science

> A few in medicine

<snip>

> At this point, there is no academic field of study

> whatsoever where an

> adequate article could be written using only open access

> material.

> This is of course a very limiting thing for access to

> information not

> just for us, but for the world in general, and the WMF

> projects should

> certainly cooperate? as closely as possible with the

> forces working

> for open access, but the suggestion that it is possible to

> limit to or

> even prefer open acces material is incompatible with the

> policy on

> using the best available sources.





Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of contacting

universities and content database providers and inviting them to support

Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the

benefit -- to them -- that increased citation of high-quality publications

would potentially make these publications visible to a larger audience?



Is this something the Foundation would consider pursuing?



Andreas









_______________________________________________

foundation-l mailing list

foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org

Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l







_______________________________________________

Wikimediareference-l mailing list

Wikimediareference-l at lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediareference-l




-- 
Charles Paisley
812-267-4878
cpaisley at gmail.com


-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Wikimediareference-l mailing list
Wikimediareference-l at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediareference-l



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediareference-l/attachments/20110315/e5a65ebc/attachment.htm