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>
