On 8/12/12 1:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 August 2012 00:07, Ocaasi Ocaasi wrote:
This is not just a problem with paywalled sources, but *any* source which is
not available free *and* online. Not all of the sources that have been donated
are solely pay-for-access; some of them, for exam
On 12 August 2012 00:07, Ocaasi Ocaasi wrote:
> This is not just a problem with paywalled sources, but *any* source which is
> not available free *and* online. Not all of the sources that have been
> donated are solely pay-for-access; some of them, for example, you would just
> need a good un
A few additional thoughts:
This is not just a problem with paywalled sources, but *any* source which is
not available free *and* online. Not all of the sources that have been donated
are solely pay-for-access; some of them, for example, you would just need a
good university library reference s
I think there is fair reason to raise questions about the benefit of paywalled
sources, despite my optimism about the partnerships. I don't totally share the
concerns, but they are surely worth addressing:
First off, we are not handled any ideal choices here. Either our editors do
not have acc
On 11 August 2012 23:15, Todd Allen wrote:
> Regardless, my congratulations and thanks to Ocassi who's capitalized
> on this sea change. You've done a significant service to the project.
+1 to that. Well done!
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wiki
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 11 August 2012 22:56, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>> 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 i
On 11 August 2012 22:56, Michael Peel wrote:
> 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
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
My thoughts are as follows: These "paywall" resources only make accessible
information that has already been published, and which editors would
otherwise have to purchase or access through other financially-restrictive
means. But the same is true of our readers, who would have to check the
refere
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 freel
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 ev
11 matches
Mail list logo
