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 <astin...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 
> 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>

--------------------------------------------------
Teemu Leinonen
http://teemuleinonen.fi
+358 50 351 6796
Media Lab
http://mlab.uiah.fi
Aalto University 
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
--------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to