Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Andrea Zanni
As much as I love Jake and Alex's work,
and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge
that
"playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything.
Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they
play along, keeping the system alive and well.

Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly
that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with
a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also
that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.

As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
volunteer good will. I personally think that we are making a big mistake
thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.

Aubrey




On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman  wrote:

> We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have it,
> at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus make
> it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
>
> If all we did was re-package information that was already freely available,
> our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this system
> is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple ways.
> Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
>  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> what will be best for the encyclopedia.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
> wrote:
>
> > Shani,
> >
> > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
> > year and directly addresses this issue:
> >
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> >
> > ~ Keegan
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
> >
> > > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say
> on
> > > the issue.
> > >
> > > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> > >
> > > Shani.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> > (from
> > > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook
> posts
> > > and
> > > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > > (which
> > > > is certainly an important piece.
> > > >
> > > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> > been
> > > a
> > > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it --
> and
> > > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > > (entities
> > > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> > this
> > > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
> > > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to
> overturn
> > > an
> > > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > > volunteers
> > > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those
> > who
> > > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program,
> and
> > > are
> > > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in
> > > with
> > > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > > >
> > > > -Pete
> > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
> > with
> > > > > them."
> > > > >
> > > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> > > > > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be
> to
> > > the
> > > > > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to
> > improve
> > > > the
> > > > > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by
> > withdrawing
> > > > > those resources.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread David Goodman
We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have it,
at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus make
it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.

If all we did was re-package information that was already freely available,
our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this system
is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple ways.
Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
 writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
what will be best for the encyclopedia.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell 
wrote:

> Shani,
>
> This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
> year and directly addresses this issue:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
>
> ~ Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani"  wrote:
>
> > Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
> > the issue.
> >
> > Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.
> >
> > Shani.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus
> (from
> > > the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts
> > and
> > > discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said
> > (which
> > > is certainly an important piece.
> > >
> > > A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have
> been
> > a
> > > good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and
> > > specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language
> > (entities
> > > like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe
> this
> > > was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
> > > future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
> > >
> > > I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn
> > an
> > > existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia
> > volunteers
> > > would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those
> who
> > > have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and
> > are
> > > presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in
> > with
> > > them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
> > >
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <
> > wikigamal...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
> with
> > > > them."
> > > >
> > > > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> > > > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to
> > the
> > > > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to
> improve
> > > the
> > > > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by
> withdrawing
> > > > those resources.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should
> > > not.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Gerard,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation
> > with
> > > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Milos
> > > > >
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Can we see the Knight grant application and grant offer?

2016-02-14 Thread Gnangarra
FYI making main stream media

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-on-google-in-search/7168840

On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I say
> "advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies soliciting or expecting
> some kind of response or engagement - probably
> approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the memo. I
> think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement, they can
> initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and comprehensive, of
> course.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony.  By "consulted", I would mean
> > something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a grant
> of
> > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to agree to
> > accept such a grant if the application is successful.  The grant
> > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both time and
> > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker.  Being informed
> > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli situation
> > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no, even if
> they
> > don't think it was a reasonable grant application.  In this case, we're
> > only dealing with $250,000.  What if this was $1 million?  $10 million?
> >
> > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly consulted
> > before the application is submitted.  (And again, I note that we don't
> know
> > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was granted.)
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole  wrote:
> >
> > > Anne, regarding:
> > >
> > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations over $100,000
> > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and possibly
> > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar value
> > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of such
> > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications. That
> seems a
> > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the board to be
> > > *advised
> > > *of such applications and when they're being actively contemplated or
> > > prepared.
> > >
> > > Anthony Cole
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker  wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I personally would
> > like
> > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer future
> and
> > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer support a
> large
> > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > >
> > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to work
> closely
> > > with
> > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff, and 30%
> of
> > > its
> > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > organization.
> > > >
> > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times grant
> > > > applications are made for considerably more than is given, and I am
> > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first place.  I
> > > would
> > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally advised of
> the
> > > > request before it was submitted.  Since the Board must approve
> > acceptance
> > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious that they
> > > should
> > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any grant
> > applications
> > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.  I don't
> > > believe
> > > > the current policies require advance approval or even advance
> > > notification,
> > > > though.
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha does not get
> us
> > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am not afraid to
> > be
> > > a
> > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things happened that
> > were
> > > > not
> > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me is that
> people
> > > like
> > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of "my" Wikimedia
> > > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use Magnus's tool
> and
> > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to understand that
> > > > official
> > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this "because it was not in
> > the
> > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money to solve
> > this...
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us forward.
> What

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Yes it is intentionally. There is enough shit going on and we need not pile
more on at this time. So move on.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 14 February 2016 at 23:01, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Shani
Would love to hear what the Wikipedia Library Project team has to say on
the issue.

Pinging Jake Orlowitz & Alex Stinson.

Shani.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from
> the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts and
> discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which
> is certainly an important piece.
>
> A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have been a
> good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and
> specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language (entities
> like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe this
> was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
> future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.
>
> I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn an
> existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia volunteers
> would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those who
> have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and are
> presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in with
> them, or looked at their work, Milos?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> > them."
> >
> > This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> > including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
> > encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve
> the
> > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
> > those resources.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should
> not.
> > > The
> > > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > > >
> > > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> > >
> > > Dear Gerard,
> > >
> > > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> > >
> > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> > > them.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
As the panel moderator, I felt there was a rather strong consensus (from
the various communication channels -- wiki pages, blog & Facebook posts and
discussions, and the panel) that went a bit beyond what Robert said (which
is certainly an important piece.

A number of people also felt that, while the Elsevier deal may have been a
good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and
specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language (entities
like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe this
was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that
future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values.

I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn an
existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia volunteers
would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those who
have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and are
presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in with
them, or looked at their work, Milos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> "No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them."
>
> This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
> including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
> encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve the
> encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
> those resources.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> >  wrote:
> > > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> > The
> > > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> > >
> > > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
> >
> > Dear Gerard,
> >
> > You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
> >
> > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> > them.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Milos
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
"No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
them."

This was debated extensively last September.   The opinion of many,
including myself, was that the WMF's primary commitment should be to the
encyclopedia and providing editors and readers the resources to improve the
encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing
those resources.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Milos Rancic
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk  wrote:
> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
> ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
> editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
> overwhelming consensus.
>
> I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.

Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
and Wikimedia movement.

Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.

Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.

Until few months ago, connection with Elsevier could have been
tolerated as edgy, but useful. However, we are now in completely
different situation. I hear *our* friends are under high pressure
because of this and I just hope all of them are more emotionally tough
than Aaron was.

Now, hypocritical people all over Wikimedia movement think it's fine
to tolerate such connection. Because it doesn't hurt us and they are
giving us cookies. It hurts just people belonging to our wider
movement, whom we accidentally know. Why should we care about them?

Besides being legally obligated or having overwhelming consensus, I
suppose we have some values, some moral obligations and backbone.

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk  
> wrote:
>> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
>> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
>> ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
>> editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
>> overwhelming consensus.
>>
>> I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
>
> Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
> consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
> litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
> and Wikimedia movement.
>
> Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
> was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
>
> Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
> it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.

Actually, they did...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:JSTOR=485563919

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Milos Rancic
Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If
so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub,
LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].

[1] 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Andrea Zanni
As much as I'd **love** to see that,
I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.

Aubrey

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If
> so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub,
> LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].
>
> [1]
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Milos Rancic
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
> As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable
> BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.

There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
projects.


-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
 (Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial).
I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
abandon this arrangement.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni 
> wrote:
> > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> despicable
> > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
>
> There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> projects.
>
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Pete Forsyth
Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
proprietary sources of information:
http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/

On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
Access publishing advocates.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
(I convened and moderated the panel)

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
>  (Here's my take on that debate:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> ).
> I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> abandon this arrangement.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni 
> > wrote:
> > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > despicable
> > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> >
> > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > projects.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Milos
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Robert Fernandez
I watched this remotely, good stuff.  Everyone seemed to be in basic
agreement on the issues.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Pete Forsyth  wrote:

> Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
> the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
> proprietary sources of information:
> http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/
>
> On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
> Access publishing advocates.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> (I convened and moderated the panel)
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez 
> wrote:
>
> > The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> > Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
> >  (Here's my take on that debate:
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> > ).
> > I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> > abandon this arrangement.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <
> zanni.andre...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > > despicable
> > > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> > >
> > > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > > projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not. The
WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.

No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 14 February 2016 at 22:52, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu  wrote:
> > Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them
> into
> > the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed
> > sources.
>
> Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's
> not valid excuse.
>
> --
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Lodewijk
Hi Milos,

that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
overwhelming consensus.

I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not.
> The
> > WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
> >
> > No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.
>
> Dear Gerard,
>
> You are again ignoring the point intentionally.
>
> No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with
> them.
>
> Sincerely,
> Milos
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Milos Rancic
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Anyone can use Sci-Hub. Officially you cannot, legally you should not. The
> WMF makes it possible for those who want to use Elsevier.
>
> No problem; anyone can use Sci-Hub. Move on.

Dear Gerard,

You are again ignoring the point intentionally.

No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with them.

Sincerely,
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-14 Thread Milos Rancic
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu  wrote:
> Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them into
> the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed
> sources.

Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's
not valid excuse.

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

2016-02-14 Thread Ziko van Dijk
There pure costs shouldn't be the main or only argument. What does the
movement pay, for what? How are the goals of the movement served by
Wikimania or other conventions? The better we understand that the
better our conventions are.
For example, for the programme of the Wikimedia Conference Netherlands
I looked at the strategy and annual plan of the association. It gives
you a good feeling to see that our conference was already in line with
that. :-)
Kind regards
Ziko


2016-02-13 7:52 GMT+01:00 David Goodman :
> Rather, we should spend more, possibly several times as much. We need much
> wider participation, both for Wikimania and for regional conferences, and
> the only practical way to achieve that is to pay full expenses for all
> regular participants who want to attend.  It should not be an elite event.
> The WMF is running a considerable surplus, and we should spend 5 or 10 %
>  of it on interpersonal live access to  each other.
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:02 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel
>>  wrote:
>> > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great if the
>> WMF
>> > and the local team will share the costs.
>> >
>> > Until now Wikimania London didn't published anything:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Budget
>> >
>> > And also Mexico:
>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2015/Budget
>> >
>> > Maybe I missed something, but it's strange that such discussion takes
>> place
>> > without a real budget breakdown. To summarize 2 huge event to "1$ million
>> > USD" does not make sense.
>>
>> I agree.  Without public data, how can there be an informed public
>> consultation.
>>
>> I've asked for similar data at:
>>
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania#Analysis_on_repeat_funded_attendees
>>
>> --
>> John Vandenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Spread the love, Discourse and synchronization

2016-02-14 Thread Ad Huikeshoven
Hello fellow Wikimedians,

On this very special day I would like to share with you yesterdays post by
Rosemary Rein and todays post by Nicole Ebber. [1] & [2] 

This installation of Discourse is a pilot to test. Your data belong to you.
You can download your own posts and replies from your user page. Maybe you
like an archive of all posts. You can download all posts from the
wikimedia-l category from the export page. [3] Discourse is a labs project
and I don't promise anything will be kept here for long. Expect things to
change. Thanks for the support by Erik Bernhardson.

The wikimedia-l mailing list can also be accessed as a newsgroup. [4] Some
people have asked for synchronization between the wikimedia-l mailing list
and the wikimedia-l category here, which is discussed at Discourse. [5]
Setting up a sync will require some research and experimentation. The
mailing list to newsgroup bridge might serve as a model. Austin Hair
volunteered to look into this.

The number of people signing up for an account at Discourse is slowly
growing. On this special day, spread the love. 

Best wishes,

Ad

This message has been sent from the gmane webinterface to the wikimedia-l
mailing list. I wonder if it might be possible to set up the discourse
installation as a web interface as well.

[1]:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ _ 
programevaluation/permalink/565662480251322/
[2]:
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2016/02/14/ _ 
wir-lieben-freie-software-eine-homage/?utm_content=bufferc272b& _ 
utm_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer
[3]: https://discourse.wmflabs.org/exports/
[4]: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation
[5]: https://discourse.wmflabs.org/t/synchronization/74


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,