The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain
available online to anyone who wants to read or use it.
I was hoping that the new government might be less star-struck than the
previous one. Plus
Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well
influence the perception of open access.
Jan Velterop
On 2
Sorry, but I disagree with this.
I understand all the help that celebrities can bring to a cause, but the choice
of the celebrity should be wise. In this case, there is a dangerous risk of
mixing up concepts.
Wikipedia is, by definition, the negation of peer reviewing. Or, at best, it is
I very much welcome this appointment. He is no stranger to scholpub - here
is an example of him publishing Wikiproteins, in a peer-reviewed journal
(with a high imact factor for those who worry):
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/5/R89
And dare we say - he has built a repository that people
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
I wrote a piece a couple of years ago and compared the archives with
the backyard steel furnaces during
the Big Leap in China.
At last an European government has the courage to change all that. We
can expect a modern steel
industry that will have a global impact. We time of the evangelist is
at
The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain
available online to anyone who wants to read or use it.
I was hoping that the new government might be less star-struck than the
previous one. Plus
Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well
influence the perception of open access.
Jan Velterop
On 2
Sorry, but I disagree with this.
I understand all the help that celebrities can bring to a cause, but the choice
of the celebrity should be wise. In this case, there is a dangerous risk of
mixing up concepts.
Wikipedia is, by definition, the negation of peer reviewing. Or, at best, it is
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 19:00 +0900, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain
available online to anyone who wants to read or use it.
I was hoping that the new
âThis initiative is most likely to result in a central repository that will
host
all research articles that result from public funding.â
Â
Why use the existing distributed system of institutional repositories when you
can waste even more public money on a huge centralised IT project?
Â
On 2012-05-02, at 6:00 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain
available online to anyone who wants to read or use it.
I was hoping that the new government might be
I don't think we need to worry about WIkipedia because Jimmy Wales is being
used as an expert in crowd-sourced knowledge initiatives, rather than the
purveyor of a system for providing OA. In the UK I think that the best way
forward is to embrace the welcome aspects of the government's
Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 13:12:29 +0100
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Wikipedia founder to help in [UK] government's
research scheme
In my view
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
I very much welcome this appointment. He is no stranger to scholpub - here is an
example of him publishing Wikiproteins, in a peer-reviewed journal (with a
high
imact factor for those who worry):
http://genomebiology.com/2008/9/5/R89
And dare we say - he has built a repository that people
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
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).
Thanks to Jan for pointing out that JW is consulting on OA
for the UK government for free. I apologize for having assumed
otherwise!
On the expertise JW brings to bear on OA, that remains to be seen...
Stevan Harnad
On 2012-05-02, at 10:56 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
On 2 May 2012, at 15:31,
19 matches
Mail list logo
