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
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://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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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]]
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
