Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA THIS! I had a first shot at it but it doesn't work as expected, even though basically identical templates run just fine at another MediaWiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OAoldid=475025593#Tests . Any hints welcome. Daniel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA THIS! I had a first shot at it but it doesn't work as expected, even though basically identical templates run just fine at another MediaWiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OAoldid=475025593#Tests . Any hints welcome. Daniel The problem and potential solution are explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:OA-ness However adding those icons everywhere is a big change, and it needs to be discussed on the project, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPPRO btw, the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany Open Access Catalogue hosted on wikipedia seems to be replicating much of the work already being done on the OAD wiki. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
-- http://www.google.com/profiles/daniel.mietchen On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:56 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: The problem and potential solution are explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:OA-ness Thanks - I took one of the workarounds you pointed to, so http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandboxoldid=475001832 now does what I wanted it to do. However adding those icons everywhere is a big change, and it needs to be discussed on the project, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Citation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPPRO Sure, though the discussion we are having here on the mailing list looks like a good preparation for that. I think the minimal variant that would make sense is just the flagging of OA (of whatever kind) by way of the orange padlock. In the demo, I have added in the CC logos for the license being used by that publisher. This makes sense only for the rather few publishers (and perhaps repositories) that have all their content under a CC license (and preferably the same license for all articles). I do think it makes sense to consider adding license as an additional field to citation templates, but I am not convinced the icons (particularly at the size in the demo) are the way to go. If we go that way, we could also use doi-based (or similar) tools to determine the default for a publisher or outlet, and allow it to be overwritten by entering a different value in license (which would be especially useful for hybrid journals but requires a lot of manual work). I have also added the grey padlock for closed access (i.e. for cases when the DOi provides no information about any potential OA-ness of the reference at hand), and question marks to signal the need for a check. I am not yet convinced we should make wide-spread use of the grey padlock icon, and the question marks could be replaced by something more similar to existing maintenance templates. btw, the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany Open Access Catalogue hosted on wikipedia seems to be replicating much of the work already being done on the OAD wiki. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Yes, but much of the OAD would be considered OR, whereas the Catalogue serves - amongst other things - to facilitate the transfer of suitable OAD information onto Wikimedia projects. Thanks and cheers, Daniel ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie derby_...@yahoo.com wrote: Looks like a braindead law. Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess? The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded research studies, which I'm quite pleased about: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy Actually we do have an official position--we are signatories to the Berlin Declaration on Open Access: http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ which states that its supporters believe in the importance of open access and work to promote it (the full document is actually pretty nice). -Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: k...@wikimedia.org, k...@mindspillage.org (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Kat Walsh k...@mindspillage.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie derby_...@yahoo.com wrote: Looks like a braindead law. Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess? The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded research studies, which I'm quite pleased about: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy Actually we do have an official position--we are signatories to the Berlin Declaration on Open Access: http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ which states that its supporters believe in the importance of open access and work to promote it (the full document is actually pretty nice). -Kat Right! I forgot about that. Thanks, Kat. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
Elsevier is emblematic of an abusive publishing industry. The government pays me and other scientists to produce work, and we give it away to private entities, says Brett S. Abrahams, an assistant professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Then they charge us to read it. Mr. Abrahams signed the pledge on Tuesday after reading about it on Facebook. http://chronicle.com/article/As-Journal-Boycott-Grows/130600/ http://thecostofknowledge.com/ Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely available. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699: Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination. Defines private-sector research work as an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely available. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699: Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination. Defines private-sector research work as an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
I don't know if it's the case, but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott, of course). But universal access to universal knowledge is pretty Open Access to me, and this think is taking momentum, hopefully will be effective. Aubrey 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely available. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699: Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination. Defines private-sector research work as an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
Looks like a braindead law. Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess? - Original Message - From: Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2012 4:32 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott I don't know if it's the case, but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott, of course). But universal access to universal knowledge is pretty Open Access to me, and this think is taking momentum, hopefully will be effective. Aubrey 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely available. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699: Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination. Defines private-sector research work as an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
Hi Andrea, could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to know) Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I could imagine this is already the case) In the past Wikimedia has always taken the stance that if people or companies want to exercize their copyright within legal limits, we have no objection to that (although we may challenge some of the legal limits). Would you propose a standpoint that goes further than that? (because then, it would imho certainly require much more community discussion before we take such step) Best regards, Lodewijk No dia 1 de Fevereiro de 2012 17:32, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.comescreveu: I don't know if it's the case, but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott, of course). But universal access to universal knowledge is pretty Open Access to me, and this think is taking momentum, hopefully will be effective. Aubrey 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely available. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699: Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination. Defines private-sector research work as an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting closed journals (i.e. they are not publishing in them). -- David Richfield [[:en:User:Slashme]] +27718539985 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote: If I understand the suggestion properly, the idea was not to stop linking to articles in closed journals, but to find some meaningful way to support the efforts of the researchers who are boycotting closed journals (i.e. they are not publishing in them). That is actually something we could do: make an intensified effort to cite the work of the boycotting researchers - to heal their losses from not publishing in Elsevier journals - and commit to working in citations of any future boycotters. We wouldn't be banning Elsevier citations so much as declining to spend our time on adding any new ones. Of course, this proposal has the problem that to work, it would require editors to add a lot of content, rather than delete it. But it shows that we have a lot of options besides the simple-minded 'ban Elsevier citations' option. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On 1 February 2012 17:12, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote: could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to know) Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I could imagine this is already the case) I can't see this flying. If the most evil person in the world publishes a work that it's appropriate to cite in an educational article, then we cite it. Elsevier are a giant sucking vampire tick on science and knowledge itself, and if we were looking for an enemy they'd be an excellent candidate, but there's lots more evil people out there. But, as Gwern suggests, papers by researchers who have joined the boycott would be fertile ground for new content for the projects. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
2012/2/1 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org Hi Andrea, could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to know) Hi Lodewijk, thanks for the engaging question ;-) Boycotting non-OA journals is not what I had in mind (as others explained), here the aim is to point as Elsevier as an example of a wicked system. Free knowledge could benefit from a renewed scholarly publishing world, in which every research would be open to the public to be read and studied, and the datasets of that research would be open to be tested again. Scientific research is the cutting/bleeding edge of human inquiry, and you perfectly understand how it would be important to have results of that inquiry to be available to anyone who wants to access it. Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I could imagine this is already the case) This is more difficult. I don't have many concrete ideas, but if Wikimedia related scholars could add their name to the boycott list, and WMF would say that clear and loud, that would be a small but significant step. Many others could follow. Boycott citations to important articles or journals is not really a good move (it's complicated): better would be for any editor to check if there is an open access article which provide similar results, but this would be very time-consuming, I think, and not always effective. In the past Wikimedia has always taken the stance that if people or companies want to exercize their copyright within legal limits, we have no objection to that (although we may challenge some of the legal limits). Would you propose a standpoint that goes further than that? (because then, it would imho certainly require much more community discussion before we take such step) I would like to point out that Open Access and in general Open Science are movements wants science results open and available for all. Traditional copyright is not the main enemy: the enemy is a publishing system that exploit the work of researchers (which write, review, and buy articles) and public funds (through universities and libraries) with a very too high profits. The system is wicked because there is a monopoly of few huge publishers which decide prices of journals, which force you to buy journals you don't want (the bundle system). Moreover, the are the Impact Factor issues, and the fact that these publishers agree with SOPA, ACTA, etc. I would like also to hear from Daniel, our beloved Wikimedian In Residence for Open Access :-) Aubrey Best regards, Lodewijk No dia 1 de Fevereiro de 2012 17:32, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.comescreveu: I don't know if it's the case, but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott, of course). But universal access to universal knowledge is pretty Open Access to me, and this think is taking momentum, hopefully will be effective. Aubrey 2012/2/1 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely available. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699: Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's employer, assent to such network dissemination. Defines private-sector research work as an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency in the course of research. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:53:23PM -0500, Gwern Branwen wrote: Of course, this proposal has the problem that to work, it would require editors to add a lot of content, rather than delete it. But it shows that we have a lot of options besides the simple-minded 'ban Elsevier citations' option. Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort? (Akin to WikiNews in operation, perhaps?) sincerely, Kim Bruning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On 1 February 2012 20:14, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Coulw we start a WikiJournal of some sort? Been floated from time to time thus not going to happen (Akin to WikiNews in operation, perhaps?) No. If were actually going to launch a journal we would do it in a conventional manner. Partly so wikipedia will view it as a reliable source and partly because in some way wikinews acts as a terrible warning. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is. One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the OA-ness of cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of the Signpost (most recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#References ). So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA . Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA, others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses. What else can we do? Well, the usual stuff: assessing and improving existing articles around OA and starting new ones, or putting OA materials to new uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access has recently been started with precisely these goals. We can also highlight content that we reuse from OA sources, as per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Open_Access_File_of_the_Day , or we can see to OA-related topics or files being more systematically considered for the various options of featuring. As for any other article, the entries on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier should strive to neutrally state the facts - they speak for themselves. That said, I am certainly supportive of closer interaction between the OA and Wikimedia communities - not by chance one of the core aspects of my Wikimedian in Residence project ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science ). Such interaction can take place in multiple ways, e.g. via an Open-Access policy of the Foundation (currently being developed by RCOM at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy ), via removal of weasel words in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Criticism , via collaboration with scholarly journals (e.g. as per http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Open_Access_report#Topic_Pages_at_PLoS_Computational_Biology ), via translation of OA-related articles (cf. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/January_2012/Contents/Tool_testing_report#Documentation_of_DYKs_and_other_temporarily_featured_content ), or by mutually showcasing OA an wiki matters at wiki and OA events (e.g. as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#Briefly or http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_Residence_on_Open_Science/Events ) . With regards to boycotting Elsevier, I do not think that would easily fall within the mission of the Foundation (or even individual chapters), but of course, individual Wikimedians are free to join. I haven't joined the anti-Elsevier pledge and have no intention to do so anytime soon, for two main reasons: - Elsevier is neither the only nor the fiercest opponent of Open Access, just the biggest one - I have already signed a (rather moderate) Open Access pledge last year (cf. http://www.openaccesspledge.com/?page_id=2 ) and a more strict one last month (cf. http://www.researchwithoutwalls.org/451 ). In both cases, it applies to all non-OA publishing rather than just one publisher, and in the latter case, I specifically mention compatibility with reuse on Wikipedia as a criterion for me to get involved. Stressing the reuse aspects of OA is an area that I can well imagine being championed by the Wikimedia community or by the Foundation: Much of Gold OA is reusable on Wikipedia (e.g. all PLoS or Hindawi journals but not Nature Communications or Scientific Reports, nor Living Reviews or Scholarpedia), some of Green OA (e.g. all of Nature Precedings, some of arXive, though not visibly so) and basically nothing of traditionally published materials (exceptions being the odd human genome paper released directly into the Public Domain). It is thus not surprinsing to see that a ranking of publishers by number of pages on Wikimedia Commons that mention one of their DOIs sees several OA publishers ahead of Elsevier and other large non-OA publishers (cf. http://toolserver.org/~dartar/cite-o-meter/?commons=1 ; prototype; loads slowly and is not entirely up to date). I am involved in work on a tool that automatically uploads to Commons audio and video files from suitably licensed OA articles (cf. http://wir.okfn.org/2012/01/18/project-introduction-open-access-media-importer-for-wikimedia-commons/ ). OA publishers - namely PLoS - have been pushing the idea of openly
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 February 2012 00:31, Daniel Mietchen daniel.mietc...@googlemail.comwrote: I think that skipping non-OA sources is not a valid option, though encouragement of the use of relevant OA sources is. One way to achieve that could be by highlighting the OA-ness of cited references, as is now common practice in the Research section of the Signpost (most recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-30/Recent_research#References ). So far, this flagging is done manually, but at least for publishers that use the same Creative Commons license for all the articles they publish, it would be easy to modify citation templates like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_journal to include the OA icon for all DOIs belonging to the prefixes listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Open_Knowledge_Foundation_Germany/Open_Access_Catalogue/OA_publishers/DOI_prefixes_entirely_OA . Things get a bit more complicated on the journal level, especially in the case of hybrid OA journals, in which some articles are OA, others not, and even the OA ones may be under different licenses. snip Daniel THIS! I agree with what was said before that it would be technically (and intellectually) difficulty to boycott links to particular sources from Wikipedias. I think it would be fantastic if we could *promote* Open Access sources in our references - see Daniel's link to the Signpost (above) for a good example. If we could overcome some technical difficulties (Daniel describes some above). This would be a positive action to support OA rather than a punitive action against other less open (but still legal) publishers of Reliable Sources. It would also help promote the idea of OA sources in the general public. Ideally this could be done automatically by compiling a list of OA compliant sources and automatically adding in the OA icon to a footnote whenever the relevant citation code is called. We have lists of journal usage, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Popular1 and Wikipedia articles about journals often have OA information in the infobox. e.g. our most cited journal, J. Biol. Chem., is 12 month delay OA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Biological_Chemistry -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Chess Pie derby_...@yahoo.com wrote: Looks like a braindead law. Does the foundation have a specific position on OpenAccess? The WMF as an entity doesn't have a specific position/policy, though in general we are squarely in the camp of OA supporters; but as Daniel noted the Research Committee is working on an OA policy for funded research studies, which I'm quite pleased about: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Open-access_policy Maybe Daniel knows if there are any general position papers about how OA in general benefits Wikimedia projects? Re: the Elsevier journal boycott, I've been following this fairly closely out of professional and personal interest -- it's not strictly a protest in favor of OA, but rather a protest around several issues related to how Elsevier handles and charges for journal content, including supporting restrictions, like the research works act. It is true that Elsevier is not especially worse than several other big publishers, but they have a big name and a long history of unfriendly moves to the library academic community which make them perhaps an easier target. What's interesting about the boycott is that a) it's grown very quickly, with several thousand people signing in the past couple weeks; and b) it's a lot of prominent researchers from a wide variety of institutions. What gives this boycott power is not institutional support but rather individual researchers and scholars, who provide both the content and the labor in scientific publishing, saying that they were not interested in working with Elsevier. If enough people say that and follow through, Elsevier's entire business model falls apart. -- phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
