This is my tuppence-worth about Davis Willetts, Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia and the direction of OA in the UK.
Wikipedia is unlike any scholarly activity (a journal or a repository) because articles are not submitted to it, fully formed, by experts, with a request for evaluation. Instead, articles are co-written, word by word, line by line, link by link, with each contribution being the subject of discussion, retraction and alteration according to a strong community code of practice that is enforced in a surprisingly consistent fashion. Some form of "review" is constantly ongoing among the "peer" contributors. Many academics find Wikipedia a source of frustration because it does not permit them to act as authorities in their own right, in an area in which we might expect them to be trusted. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." (according to the WIkipedia policy entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) However, from 30,000 feet Wikipedia appears a lot like an OA repository because it is a web service dedicated to sharing open knowledge. This is the level that most UK government ministers will be able to appreciate, and hence the level that we have to appear positive about. I think if we can bear to describe our Green OA activities as analogous to a distributed and sustainable set of mini-wikipedias that are each adopted by an institution or community that cares about its contents, then we can back the governments ideas and shepherd them in a fruitful direction. -- Les Carr On 2 May 2012, at 15:56, Jan Velterop wrote: > > On 2 May 2012, at 15:31, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >> On 2012-05-02, at 9:28 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: >> >>> On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>>> >>>> Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good >>>> sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM). >>>> >>>> Wikipedia is based on the antithesis of peer review. Asking JW to help make >>>> sure peer-reviewed research is available to all is like asking McDonalds to >>>> help the WHO/FDA make sure that wholesome food is available to all. >>> >>> Ach, come off it, Stevan. By your reckoning arXiv is also the antithesis of >>> peer review. Would you talk in the same way about Paul Ginsparg? >> >> Arxiv contains preprints of articles before and after peer review. Arxiv >> does not do peer review. Neither do institutional repositories. > > And Wikipedia doesn't either, so why is that the antithesis to peer review? >> >> (Why do you ask about Paul Ginsparg?) >> >>> OA will gain from more involvement of people who understand diplomacy, >>> persuasion, and yes, 'marketing'. >> >> At the moment, Jimmy Wales does not have a clue about what are the real >> problems of getting OA provided by researchers; nor does he have a clear >> understanding of (or any experience with) peer review. > > He knows and understands far more about OA that you presume (on the basis of > what do you presume that, actually?). For a start, he has been 'educated' on > all matters OA by Melissa Hagemann herself. > >> >> This can all be remedied, if someone has JW's ear, and he listens and >> understands. >> >> Then JW can be a helpful (though no doubt expensive > > Expensive? No-doubt? You didn't read the article in The Guardian, did you? > There it says "? he was brought in by No 10 as an unpaid adviser to > government on crowdsourcing?". > >> ) conduit to the ears of >> those (David Willetts?) who are in a position to do what needs to get done >> to >> make the RCUK mandates work. >> >> Meanwhile, regarding diplomacy and persuasion, I suggest that you give >> more weight to what Professor Rentier has posted >> about academia's attitude to Wikipedia. We are trying to win researchers >> over to providing OA to their peer-reviewed research -- not to win them >> over to some fantasied Wikipedia-style alternative to peer review. >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2012-May/000372.html >> >> We've been down this path so many times, Jan. Is the appointment of a >> celebrity name now to be the occasion for rehearsing it all yet again? > > I know somebody who is infinitely more repetitive with his views than I am > with my views. > >> >> It's not diplomacy that's needed; it's effectively formulated and >> implemented >> policy. The RCUK already leads the rest of the world in OA, but its OA >> policy >> needs tweaking to make it effective. >> >> Stevan Harnad >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL at eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
