Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harvard urges Elsevier boycott

2013-01-14 Thread Etienne Beaule
There is also Access2Research  about free research
articles in the Us.

On 2013-01-14 21:06, Everton Zanella Alvarenga

 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 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
 On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Richard Symonds 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

2012-08-20 Thread Etienne Beaule
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 wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Nathan 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
 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.
 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

2012-08-11 Thread Etienne Beaule
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 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 outŠ
 What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss
 these offers in general?
 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,
 On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi 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
 * '''[[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
 * '''[[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 
 edia_Library Community Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project.
 Drop by my talk page if you have any questions.  Now, go sign up!
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] ombudsmen commission

2012-04-22 Thread Etienne Beaule
Still, a vote for new members should of been done.


On 12-04-22 4:29 PM, Richard Symonds

 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...
 On Apr 22, 2012 4:11 AM, Béria Lima 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.*
 On 21 April 2012 22:06, Philippe Beaudette 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
 it on.
 Accordingly, after a great bit of deliberation, I offered the ombudsmen
 ability to extend their current term for one additional year. All, with
 exception of one, have chosen to do so.  The one who has not is Pundit,
 has accepted a position as a steward.  Dweller, who was an advisory
 of the commission, takes Pundit's seat.
 It should be noted that this was done some time ago - I have been
 remiss in sending out the notification.  There was no lapse of
 and the commission functioned fully during the gap period.
 Best wishes,
 Philippe Beaudette
 Director, Community Advocacy
 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
 415-839-6885, x 6643
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l mailing list

Wikimedia-l mailing list