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 share the open-access communities values, and I highly recommend exploring the two links shared by Keegan [1] and Pete[2], to better understand our position.
As a matter of transparency: we have provided access to nearly 80 accounts so far via our Elsevier partnership; we have also distributed access to over 500 accounts via JSTOR. These partnerships have been ones which we continue to value and cultivate, because they are high-demand resources from large percentages of our volunteer community-- not because of a moral judgement about their business practices. If there were an overwhelming consensus among our patrons (editors who have access to those resources), to return their access in boycott (or to not use it), I can understand and would support that volunteer effort: after all our community is values-based. However, as long as we continue to get access requests: building the encyclopedia and our other free knowledge projects is our first priority, because it unlocks at least some of the locked content in these databases as summaries in our projects. However, we also recognize that these partnerships give us more than just access, its also gives us opportunities to influence the publishing industry from the inside. For example, both JSTOR and Elsevier are going to be part of research into how our https change last June created dark traffic for research databases, and this work will be giving us access to referral data that is quite hard to get from anyone in the publishing industry [3]. With this data from industry leaders, we will better be able to influence open access, and make arguments for our editors and library allies to use Wikimedia projects to promote open materials. As for supporting Sci-Hub: that is an interesting concept from TWL's perspective of providing access to research for our community. We would be happy to support community consensus on how to use the tool in our research processes. Thus far, we have tried to cooperate with established institutions that work within the existing system to help create long-term stable versions of academic resources, like partnering closely with libraries, advocacy and industry groups like CrossRef and SPARC, and supporting development of tools to create Wikimedia use metrics for the open-access community (more on this hopefully coming in the next few months). Sci-hub is a great short term tool for creating pressure for change in this industry, but the publishing community also needs to figure out the best long term solutions for creating and persistently accessing academic work.[4] As for legal support, that is not within the mission of The Wikipedia Library, and in my personal opinion, this probably should be pursued through direct engagement with aligned organizations whose mission is to promote these efforts: like OKF and SPARC. Cheers, Alex Stinson Project Manager The Wikipedia Library [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cF7433aT4 [3]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikimedia_referrer_policy [4] Open access does not solve all the problems of academic publishing. For example, academic monographs in the humanities and social sciences, for instance, do cost university presses over 20,000 USD to publish and maintain persistently available, this amount of money is not readily available in non-scientific fields. Open access communities still haven't fully figured out how to solve this problem, when they are crucial to the output of those academics: http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/forum15-walters-emerging-models-humanities-publishing.pdf . Moreover, in my last job, I worked with a William Blake scholar who worked on a free to use Digital humanities project, but who thought Open access journals undermined his copyright and the prestige of his publications in tenure applications. We are still a long way off from making Open Access, as a long-term solution for academic publishing. On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Shani <shani.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <petefors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 the Elsevier deal may have been a >> good one, there may also have been better ways to communicate it -- and >> specifically, ways to place restrictions on the kind of language (entities >> like) Elsevier could use around the Wikimedia trademarks. I believe this >> was all absorbed by Wikipedia Library staff, and I have no doubt that >> future announcements will be better suited to Wikimedia values. >> >> I agree with Lodewijk that strong consensus would be needed to overturn an >> existing contract. Please note also that at least six Wikimedia volunteers >> would be impacted if Wikimedia were to renege on its contract: those who >> have gained access to Elsevier Science Direct through the program, and are >> presumably doing good Wikipedia work as a result. Have you checked in with >> them, or looked at their work, Milos? >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Elsevier_ScienceDirect >> >> -Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] >> >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Robert Fernandez <wikigamal...@gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> > "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 >> > encyclopedia, not making a moral stand against Elsevier by withdrawing >> > those resources. >> > >> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen >> > > <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> 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 again ignoring the point intentionally. >> > > >> > > No, WMF shouldn't morally support Elsevier by having any relation with >> > > them. >> > > >> > > Sincerely, >> > > Milos >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l >> , >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
