Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harvard urges Elsevier boycott
There is also Access2Research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Access2Research about free research articles in the Us. On 2013-01-14 21:06, Everton Zanella Alvarenga ezalvare...@wikimedia.org wrote: Don't worry, Richard, this news is now hot, but the situation din't progress that much from what it could be. We have the Busapest Open Access Initiative since 2002 http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/read. We can find videos of professor Jean-Claude Guédon, one of the person who wrote this initiative one decade ago, explaining in details the logics behind all this. The publish (on closed journals) or perish still reigns in the academia, so it is very important we explain the importance of knowledge to be free for every single person we meet. Still a lot to do. Tom On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Good lord, so it did. My apologies! It was making the rounds tonight and my excitement got the better of me. This is why I don't work in communications! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays
My opinion on X-rays. If done in private property, it is subject to personality rights, and if in a public area, then it can be copyrighted by the the person who took the X-ray. Ebe123 On 2012-08-20 5:17 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: It's relevant for Wikipedia, at least. I don't think the projects take a view on whether someone is risking their job or following institutional policies. Right. But it's worth mentioning... especially if the projects did take the view that the images were public domain. It's also worth noting that your description is of the process for publishing medical data (as a general category) at an academic medical institution, the sort that has an IRB. Yep. But it might actually be relatively easy to get good sets of medical images by working through those kinds of systems, and that could work regardless of the copyright status of the images. -Sage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
Mike has a good point. I expect Access2Research (see archives of wikimedia-l) to be creating more open research though. On 2012-08-11 6:56 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Hi all, I'm still trying to figure out whether these partnerships are a good or bad thing for Wikimedia. Yes, it's good/great that Wikimedia volunteers are able to access these resources so that they can develop Wikipedia articles, and hence increasing the amount of knowledge that we can freely provide to the world. But on the flip side, what about our readers - as a result of these sort of partnerships, we're increasing the number of times that we'll be pointing them towards paywall-protected services to be able to verify the information we provide, and hence the amount of money they'll be forced to pay to these organisations. And perhaps, as editors, we're supporting paywalls by accepting these offers (and hence making paywalls more prevalent), rather than refusing them until they make the content that they provide freely available. So this is a balancing act - but I'm not currently sure which side outweighs the other, or whether the two sides are currently balancing each other out What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss these offers in general? Thanks, Mike P.S. I've deliberately biased the view of this email a little towards the negative, to try to offset the positive expectation set out in the previous email a little. I think that I'm currently completely neutral on this issue, though... On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com wrote: The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for ''right now'': * '''[[WP:Credo|Credo Reference]]''' provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are '''125''' full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Credo#Sign-up sheet|here]]. * '''[[WP:HighBeam|HighBeam Research]]''' has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are '''250''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications|here]]. * '''[[WP:Questia|Questia]]''' is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be '''1000''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[Wikipedia:Questia#Apply here: Round 1|here]]. In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central '''Wikipedia Library''' where approved editors would have access to ''all'' participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikip edia_Library Community Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! --[[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission
Still, a vote for new members should of been done. Ebe123 On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: I suspect it's because they're doing a good job in the WMFs opinion, at least, that's how I read it in Philippe's email... Richard On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote: Can you explain why you request another year from them instead of running a new process, Philippe? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: A sign of a healthy committee is that it does its work promptly and undramatically. The ombudsman commission is such a committee. Charged with investigating alleged privacy violations around the checkuser tool, the commission has functioned with a high degree of professionalism and efficiency. The commission is appointed under the auspices of the Board, who have delegated this role to the staff - first to Cary, and then I took it on. Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen the ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with the exception of one, have chosen to do so. The one who has not is Pundit, who has accepted a position as a steward. Dweller, who was an advisory member of the commission, takes Pundit's seat. It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been extremely remiss in sending out the notification. There was no lapse of commission, and the commission functioned fully during the gap period. Best wishes, pb ___ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 415-839-6885, x 6643 phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
