Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
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 out… What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss these offers in general? Thanks, Mike 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, though... On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com 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 now'': * '''[[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 sheet|here]]. * '''[[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 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_Library Community Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! --[[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
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 references in exactly the same way. Therefore, we have not changed the effect on the reader. Indeed, the key reason that we include the information that the reference material was extracted through these various web resources is to appropriately identify that there may be variations from the original reference source. (Highbeam's scans sometimes come out a bit funny, particularly the symbols, for example.) Risker/Anne On 11 August 2012 17:56, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk 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 out… What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss these offers in general? Thanks, Mike 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, though... On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com 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 now'': * '''[[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 sheet|here]]. * '''[[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 [ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikipedia_LibraryCommunity Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! --[[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
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 michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk 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 out What does everyone think? And is there an on-wiki page where we can discuss these offers in general? Thanks, Mike 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, though... On 9 Aug 2012, at 19:16, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com 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 now'': * '''[[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 sheet|here]]. * '''[[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 [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikip edia_Library Community Fellowship proposal] to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! --[[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
On 11 August 2012 22:56, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk 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 in general? I think it's good for the encyclopedia content, on balance. I share your qualms about encouraging paywalls, but there's nothing to generate outrage like going to a scientific paper and seeing it will cost you £36. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 August 2012 22:56, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk 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 in general? I think it's good for the encyclopedia content, on balance. I share your qualms about encouraging paywalls, but there's nothing to generate outrage like going to a scientific paper and seeing it will cost you £36. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l I think there's that, and I think the fact that these places are opening up to an open educational project indicates they can read the writing on the wall. I think they know at some point there will be no charging $50 per article. They're going to milk it while it lasts, of course, but I think they know their model is a dying one, and they're making overtures toward those who can help them move forward. Regardless, my congratulations and thanks to Ocassi who's capitalized on this sea change. You've done a significant service to the project. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
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 access to paywalled information from which to add to our articles, or, our readers will likely not have access to those paywalled sources from which content was added. An approach to better weigh the balance here is to consider the relative percentage of our users who will *read* article content versus those who *source-check* it. I think I can comfortably say that readers far outnumber source-checkers. That means that whatever the cost to readers, it is likely several times less than the benefit to them, at least in aggregate. There are secondary considerations, still. For example, will having an increasing number of paywalled sources make things difficult for fellow *editors* to do verification work? While this is already a problem to a degree, it's not necessarily one we want to worsen. My approach to mitigating that concern is to try and make sure that *enough* of our readers do have access to these paywalled sources. For example, there will soon be '1000' editors with access to HighBeam (some of our most active for sure), and then there's always Wikiproject Resource Exchange for what falls in the gap. Will the public lose faith in Wikipedia if the content cannot be easily verified? I wish the answer wasn't so easy for me, but I think it's almost definitely that they will not lose faith. Because the average reader cares not where the information came from as long as it is presented to them in a seemingly accurate, thorough, and unbiased fashion. And I can't really imagine a great revolt in the press or elsewhere because Wikipedia is suddenly taking advantage of the best available resources that serious scholars use in their own practice. There is indeed a sea change happening with open access, and perhaps we are benefiting in part from databases trying to 'open-wash' their reputations. I think there are more primary reasons they have made these donations, however, such as receiving linkbacks, attention and good will among editors, and altruistic intentions to improve Wikipedia. In time, perhaps, we won't have to make these kinds of difficult choices... Thanks for your thoughts on this. We should continue the discussion, particularly as efforts to build a 'Wikipedia Library' of sorts go forward. Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
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 section to access. Yet I don't know if the same concerns would be raised about editors using library reference desks, any printed content for that matter. Much print content is just as difficult for readers to verify, whether it is available somewhere in the brick-and-mortar world free, or not. A second consideration is that editors are instructed as part of these partnerships to use a free version if available, and to always provide the original citation information so that a reader can seek it out on their own. Some information, for example newspaper archives, may be available nowhere else but paywalled sites. If we don't have access to them, then not only will our readers not be able to look up the source, they won't be able to read about the content in the first place. Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
On 12 August 2012 00:07, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com 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 university library reference section to access. Yet I don't know if the same concerns would be raised about editors using library reference desks, any printed content for that matter. Much print content is just as difficult for readers to verify, whether it is available somewhere in the brick-and-mortar world free, or not. I think it's a net win for our mission because it gets a summary of the knowledge itself into the encyclopedia. I would consider it an extremely bad idea for print sources to be deprecated. Wikipedia already has enough of a problem with history having apparently started in 1995. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] More opportunities for you to access free research databases!
On 8/12/12 1:20 AM, David Gerard wrote: On 12 August 2012 00:07, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikioca...@yahoo.com 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 university library reference section to access. Yet I don't know if the same concerns would be raised about editors using library reference desks, any printed content for that matter. Much print content is just as difficult for readers to verify, whether it is available somewhere in the brick-and-mortar world free, or not. I think it's a net win for our mission because it gets a summary of the knowledge itself into the encyclopedia. I would consider it an extremely bad idea for print sources to be deprecated. Wikipedia already has enough of a problem with history having apparently started in 1995. This is my general view as well. While I, like everyone else, am annoyed at hitting journal paywalls, in practical effect they aren't really any worse than academic-press books. You can't get them online, but have to head in person to a university library to request a copy. I don't think the state of the open-access literature is yet such that we can produce a good encyclopedia in many areas if we cite *only* open-access, online sources, and exclude everything that is available only in print. But if we permit things that can be gotten only in print, then closed-access journals are usually no worse than academic-press books: both can be had free at a university library, but probably not easily from Amazon or your local non-university library. I do try to prioritize in rough order of accessibility *if* all else is equal. Best is available online, second-best is widely available in print (low-priced book available in regular libraries), third-best is available in most university libraries, and last-best is obscure stuff available only in specialist archives. So most closed-access journals fall into category #3, which is sub-optimal but often needed. -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
