On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 09:12:09PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/
People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the
damn science.
This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access
message.
Thank you, Teele! I like this style of report -- it is very easy to read.SJ
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Teele Vaalma teele.vaa...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Estonia report April-June 2011
==Meetings==
*April 1. Started regular biweekly wiki-meetings in Tartu Public Library.
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
Within the general concept of Merging Wikis I agree, it would be good in
principle to have one uber-wiki that is the central hub of all community
things
+1
I wonder - would it be possible in MediaWiki to make it possible
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Juergen Fenn juergen.f...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 02.07.11 14:17 schrieb Alec Conroy:
There's an even bigger opportunity here--
Make a brand new brand name that captures the ideology better than
Wikinews is too dynamic and has it's own set of problems to merge easily.
It could be done though if given it's own namespace, and Wikipedia would
definitely benefit.
+1
In the topic area I work there are a lot of contributors writing content
that is vastly more suited to Wikinews. A News:
Am 05.07.11 14:39 schrieb Alec Conroy:
I beg your pardon, but Ziko and WereSpielChequers are absolutely right
here. You won't manage to introduce another brand name after ten years
of Wikipedia.
Not only CAN you introduce such a 'movement' brand name, but such a
name is inevitable.
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:45 PM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
The system of charging readers for distribution of scientific information is
fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia demonstrates that it is cheap to host data.
Reviewers don't get paid. Companies pay plenty to advertise
On 6 July 2011 20:58, Alec Conroy alecmcon...@gmail.com wrote:
We need a Wikijournal project, where scientists can do all the
functions of a journal without any prior approval-- collectively form
groups, review, and publish.
Free content is going to capture science eventually-- scientists
Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
something along that line.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Gerard
On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler arlen...@gmail.com wrote:
Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
something
La BNF fait appel à des partenaires privés pour numériser ses collections
http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/article/2011/07/06/la-bnf-fait-appel-a-de
s-partenaires-prives-pour-numeriser-ses-collections_1545674_651865.html#xtor
=AL-32280184
___
Remember that en:wp's no original research rule was invented for
physics cranks. And even with fairly light moderation, arXiv features
some spectacularly gibbering [[green ink]]. This will need some
thought to create something that's actually useful to anyone,
anywhere, ever.
A free journal
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 19:27, Arlen Beiler arlen...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are two types of Wikimedia projects: those which could be
reasonably treated as extensions of Wikipedia and those which couldn't
be. For example, Wiktionary (as it is presently) and Wikibooks are
2011/7/6 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler arlen...@gmail.com wrote:
Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to
be
CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
suited for that, we would just have to
14 matches
Mail list logo
