Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-18 Thread Alex Stinson
Teemu, As a followup: We would love to be more aligned with Open Access publishers, but at this point, we have yet to find a demonstrably *repeatable* and *scalable* model of programming which we could promote to the entire movement and the Open Access community. When OA publishers already set

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
These seem like reasonable ideas, Teemu, and I don't in any way oppose them. It sounds, however, like they would go through different channels at WMF (such as the grants programs, and/or business partnerships) than the Elsevier and JSTOR programs did. Nothing wrong with that, but I wanted to be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Michael Peel
> On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:08, Leinonen Teemu wrote: > >> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth wrote: >> Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from >> partnering with PLoS? > > I think brand affiliation would be a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Leinonen Teemu
> On 15.2.2016, at 18.07, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from > partnering with PLoS? I think brand affiliation would be a good start and could help PLoS, that is not so well known as the Wikipedia. I wouldn’t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread geni
On 15 February 2016 at 16:07, Pete Forsyth wrote: > Teemu, > These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are > about giving volunteers access to closed sources. > > Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Leila Zia
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Pete Forsyth
Teemu, These "partnerships" (which I think is an unfortunate word for them) are about giving volunteers access to closed sources. Apart from brand affiliation, what do you see as a potential benefit from partnering with PLoS? Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Feb 15, 2016 7:58 AM, "Leinonen Teemu"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, The problem with Elsevier is that it requires a project for people to gain access. With PLOS we do not need to partner because everybody can have all the access that they need. The biggest problem that I see with many sources is that many of them are no longer valid. They point they make has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Leinonen Teemu
Hi Alex and all, I hope you / we already have a partnership with the PLOS? https://www.plos.org - Teemu > On 15.2.2016, at 17.27, Alex Stinson wrote: > > Hi all, > > As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and > research

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Alex Stinson
Hi all, As always, we are happy to see the conversations about the publishing and research industry within the Wikimedia community. We very much believe that our readers, and other researchers, should, whenever possible, have open, or at least toll-free, access to materials when possible. We

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

2016-02-15 Thread Àlex Hinojo
+1 to Aubrey's words 2016-02-15 7:59 GMT+01:00 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

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.

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

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: >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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,