I can't speak for all my colleagues in the oa movement, as they disagree on almost every possible detail, and on almost every consideration of strategy, but I think most people there would regard "taxpayer access" both as a useful political slogan, and as a very productive strategy—a manner of proceeding through government regulation that can have a very wide and rapid effect--and that has indeed had one.
For most of those in the movement, they do want all government sponsored work to be either PD or CC:BY, and most would extent this to all published journal literature whether directly government sponsored or not. But at this point, almost nobody considers a free license like this as really a practical first policy step, and all that is actually considered necessary is read-only access. Opinions differ about whether this must be to the final published form of the material. I think everyone involved regards the 6 or 12 month delayed-access permitted by the current government mandates to be a very unfortunate compromise, but necessary in order to get anything. On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:16 PM, John Vandenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Melissa Hagemann <[email protected]> > wrote: >> .. >> It would be wonderful if we could find a way for the WMF and OA >> communities to more closely collaborate. Aubrey is right in that to a >> large extent, OA is not well known outside the library community. Given >> the reach of WMF, there seems that there must be a way to try to raise >> greater awareness of the materials which are being made available >> through OA. > > There is an ever-increasing number of Wikipedia articles about > journals, and they mention open access in the infobox ;-) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AJ > >> And if there is interest in advocating on this issue, SPARC developed >> the Alliance for Taxpayer Access >> (http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/index.shtml) which represents >> universities, libraries, patient advocacy groups, and physicians working >> to promote OA. > > I haven't heard of this before. > > The website/campaign name begs a lot of questions. > > "Why tax-payer access only?" > "What copyright license allows for tax-payer only redistribution?" > > ;-) > > If I understand correctly, they are promoting unrestricted access to > tax-payer funded research. Do they explicitly want govt-funded > research to be public domain, like US federal works are, and therefore > accessible to everyone, in every country? > > -- > John Vandenberg > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
