Actually, this is a brilliant idea, and one of the best ideas for Foundation funding use I can think of. The exact logistics can be worked out later (and I think we'd have to have some firmer numbers from the publishers in terms of pricing before we could figure out exactly how it would need to be done), but I certainly had an easier time writing articles when I had access to university research tools, and can't be the only one.
I personally would even be willing to donate to cover WMF's costs against my access in this regard, provided they can negotiate reasonable block purchase pricing. Individual subscriptions are unfortunately rather priced out of the market. On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:41 PM, FT2 <[email protected]> wrote: > Start with one and then see how that goes. It can be fine tuned, then > used as a case study for further sources who may otherwise have > concerns. > > We have two ways to make it "not just anyone", both are equally > malleable. The first is, set criteria based on edits, "level of > trust", or FA/GA contributions. The other is we ask for a rate for "up > to 5000 editors of our choice", which is probably similar size to a > number of institutions or universities, and we then can fine tune > internally how those are allocated. The latter would mean that we have > a lot of flexibility - we can avoid giving access to some editors who > meet the criteria but don't much need it, and give access to those who > can make a good case for it. > > One option might be even, request access for up to 1000 users, and > indicate a list of "criteria + fee/donation requested" (including > "these are the kinds of editors who will get priority"). First 1000 > applications get access. If the demand is there, we can request access > for a further 1000 users and repeat. > > Bear in mind we are not after permission to republish them. We just > want access for selected users to read and verify the information, or > publish a generalized summary. This would not compete, any more than a > journal citation in a bibliography or academic paper would "compete". > > FT2 > > On 12/21/08, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I did some preliminary inquires a year ago, with not very enthusiastic >> publisher response, but could follow up now--I think we're much more >> visible. >> >> Based on request I get to help out, and on observed editing and some >> user pages, I don't think it's remotely true, even in many science >> fields, that most of our editors have access to university libraries. >> Nor do I think that most of our content editors are administrators; >> conversely, of the 1100 active admins, perhaps half are active >> editors. Perhaps we should think on the basis of active editors over >> say 500 mainspace edits. This should significantly reassure the >> publishers. How many people is that? >> >> In my experience as an ejournal negotiator, starting from the first >> days of ejournals. publishers are not very willing to reduce >> significantly below published rate schedules, and we might do better >> asking for it as a donation. . But both could be tried. Most >> publishers have flat rates, in science averaging $1000 per journal, >> much less in the humanities. -- but there are a great many titles. >> some go by size--& for this we're unique in terms of subscriber base & >> its hard to predict what they'd estimate. >> >> Let's take JSTOR--remember, its backfiles only, typically without the >> most recent 5 yrs. If one wants the most recent 5 yrs, one goes to >> the publisher & pays by title. Very very roughly, rates for the JStor >> portion can be $500/yr for a small public library to $50,000 for a >> university, depending of where they class the institution & how many >> titles. If the foundation would like me to approach them, someone >> should email me offline. >> >> In science, I think some of the scientific societies will donate & the >> way to go is for some member to inquire Remember that all US NIH & UK >> MRC papers will be available free from 08+ after a 6 month delay >> through pubmedcentral. >> >> There are of course great many other possibilities, but all the >> relatively inexpensive ones involve backfiles only. >> >> >> At the going rates, figure about $1000 per journal in science--less in >> other subjects for academic journals. I doubt we'll get discounts, and >> I think we'll do better to ask for it as a donation. I've made >> preliminary inquiries in the past, and not gotten very far. But maybe >> it is time to try gain. >> >> The publisher I think this would really make sense for in terms of >> things like BLP is the NYTimes blocked years, but essentially all >> public libraries should have them. >> >> >> As for JSTOR, this is perhaps a possibility as a special case. I can >> make the contact. T >> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Alec Conroy <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 12/20/08, David Goodman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I doubt that most conventional publishers will permit the Foundation >>>> to re-sell their articles at anything less than their own list price, >>>> which is often as high as $40 per article. (that's what this amounts >>>> to) -- or for a flat rate to provide access to anyone who gets a >>>> Wikipedia account. >>> >>> Access to anyone with a wikipedia account would never fly-- that's >>> essentially asking them to offer it to anyone with internet access. >>> >>> But getting access to our admins, our users who have acheived a >>> certain edit count, or have some other well-defined criteria wouldn't >>> be much different from a university library giving access to all >>> enrolled students. >>> >>> Also a plus-- Wikipedia's content editors are, I think, by a large, >>> usually in academia. Our editors tend to be disproportionately >>> college-aged or college-affiliated. That means that many or most of >>> the people we would be buying the service for already have it, and so >>> would represent pure profit to JSTOR (or whomever). >>> >>> Alec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
