Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)

[Melissa Hagemann]

--- On Tue, Mar 8, 2011, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > From: Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
> > Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
> > databases
> > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit
> > into our
> > budget.
>
> I would like to second that as well -- this is a very important way in
> which
> the Foundation could support high-volume content contributors, and

which
> would make a significant difference to article quality.
>
> This should be a part of university outreach as well. Many university
> students have log-in IDs enabling them to log into academic databases
from
> their homes. Please tell universities who would like to support
Wikipedia
> that this is a really important way in which they can support the
project,
> by allowing established content contributors access to these
databases.


In general, access to academic journals is extremely expensive and
usually only possible for those affiliated with universities.  However
there is an alternative.  There are now over 6,000 peer-reviewed open
access journals which are freely available online (www.doaj.org) and
over 1,800 academic repositories where authors deposit copies of their
research articles (www.opendoar.org).  This is the result of the open
access movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_(publishing)
which advocates for public access to publicly funded research.

Hopefully the research which is being made available through open access
can help to support the work of the community.

Melissa


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Samuel Klein-2]

Melissa -- absolutely!  I don't know the real stats, but I think we
cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.

Approaching the problem from both sides seems useful, however,
especially for historical reference works like Wikipedia and
Wikibooks.  We absolutely do want to include a balance of sources that
are not OA, and finding better ways to search them and verify material
in them is part of making that work with our current editorial model.

S


On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Melissa Hagemann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> --- On Tue, Mar 8, 2011, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > From: Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
>> > Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
>> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
>> > databases
>> > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit
>> > into our
>> > budget.
>>
>> I would like to second that as well -- this is a very important way in
>> which
>> the Foundation could support high-volume content contributors, and
> which
>> would make a significant difference to article quality.
>>
>> This should be a part of university outreach as well. Many university
>> students have log-in IDs enabling them to log into academic databases
> from
>> their homes. Please tell universities who would like to support
> Wikipedia
>> that this is a really important way in which they can support the
> project,
>> by allowing established content contributors access to these
> databases.
>
>
> In general, access to academic journals is extremely expensive and
> usually only possible for those affiliated with universities.  However
> there is an alternative.  There are now over 6,000 peer-reviewed open
> access journals which are freely available online (www.doaj.org) and
> over 1,800 academic repositories where authors deposit copies of their
> research articles (www.opendoar.org).  This is the result of the open
> access movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_(publishing)
> which advocates for public access to publicly funded research.
>
> Hopefully the research which is being made available through open access
> can help to support the work of the community.
>
> Melissa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          [phone]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[MARIA DE LOS ANGELES HERRERA GARCIA]

 DE VERDAD ,QUISIERA PERO NO SE INGLES ,SI PUDIERAS ESCRBIR EN ESPAÑOL TE LO AGRADECERIA , MUCHAS GRACIAS MERI...

 
 
 
 

 
 




 

> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:46:00 -0500
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> CC: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Access to academic journals (was Re: Remarks on Wikimedia's fundraiser)
>
> Melissa -- absolutely! I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>
> Approaching the problem from both sides seems useful, however,
> especially for historical reference works like Wikipedia and
> Wikibooks. We absolutely do want to include a balance of sources that
> are not OA, and finding better ways to search them and verify material
> in them is part of making that work with our current editorial model.
>
> S
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Melissa Hagemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > --- On Tue, Mar 8, 2011, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > From: Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
> >> > Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>
> >> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
> >> > databases
> >> > such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit
> >> > into our
> >> > budget.
> >>
> >> I would like to second that as well -- this is a very important way in
> >> which
> >> the Foundation could support high-volume content contributors, and
> > which
> >> would make a significant difference to article quality.
> >>
> >> This should be a part of university outreach as well. Many university
> >> students have log-in IDs enabling them to log into academic databases
> > from
> >> their homes. Please tell universities who would like to support
> > Wikipedia
> >> that this is a really important way in which they can support the
> > project,
> >> by allowing established content contributors access to these
> > databases.
> >
> >
> > In general, access to academic journals is extremely expensive and
> > usually only possible for those affiliated with universities.  However
> > there is an alternative.  There are now over 6,000 peer-reviewed open
> > access journals which are freely available online (www.doaj.org) and
> > over 1,800 academic repositories where authors deposit copies of their
> > research articles (www.opendoar.org).  This is the result of the open
> > access movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access_(publishing)
> > which advocates for public access to publicly funded research.
> >
> > Hopefully the research which is being made available through open access
> > can help to support the work of the community.
> >
> > Melissa
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Juergen Fenn]

Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
> Melissa -- absolutely!  I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.

Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
must be the quality of content, not the license of a citation or whether
its available on-line or printed only.

Regards,
Jürgen.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> In general, access to academic journals is extremely expensive and
> usually only possible for those affiliated with universities.
>
> Melissa

ProQuest can be purchased by corporations. The Wikimedia Foundation is a
corporation. Typically a University will give their students access. We
could give access to established editors.

It would not have to be free. And at ProQuest you don't have to subscribe
to every database. We might, for example, take a special interest in
Black newspapers:

http://www.proquest.com/en-US/catalogs/databases/detail/histnews-bn.shtml

Or any other area which might advance our mission in a special way.

Fred


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Tomasz Ganicz]

2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn <[hidden email]>:

>
>
> Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
>> Melissa -- absolutely!  I don't know the real stats, but I think we
>> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>
> Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
> must be the quality of content, not the license of a citation or whether
> its available on-line or printed only.
>

Yes.. as well as there are areas of research for which there is no OER
journals at all. Anyway - I don't think if WMF could afford providing
access to scientific journals in aby scalable way. For example top
chemistry journals published by American Chemical Society can be
subscribed by institution - but in contract there is a limitation to a
selected range of IP numbers and maximum download per year. The cost
of intitutional subscription is around 2000 USD per journal. They
provide also indvidual subscription but only to the their members. It
is relatively easy to become an ACS member - but WMF cannot help too
much with this. Maybe it would be more clever to grant access to the
top scientific databases - for example for most active editors
-leading wikiprojects...



--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Andrea Zanni-2]

2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn <[hidden email]>

>
>
> Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
> > Melissa -- absolutely!  I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> > cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>
> Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
> must be the quality of content, not the license of a citation or whether
> its available on-line or printed only.
>

This is true, but in most cases access to the resource allows transparency
and verifiability, and we certainly want those.

BTW, do we (Wikimedia communtiy) have good and enstablished contacts with
the open access community? I mean, apart from single users or wikimedians.
IMHO lobbying with them also at an higher level should be a priority for
Wikimedia.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Andrea Zanni-2]

2011/3/8 Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]>

> 2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >
> > Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
> >> Melissa -- absolutely!  I don't know the real stats, but I think we
> >> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
> >
> > Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
> > must be the quality of content, not the license of a citation or whether
> > its available on-line or printed only.
> >
>
> Yes.. as well as there are areas of research for which there is no OER
> journals at all. Anyway - I don't think if WMF could afford providing
> access to scientific journals in aby scalable way. For example top
> chemistry journals published by American Chemical Society can be
> subscribed by institution - but in contract there is a limitation to a
> selected range of IP numbers and maximum download per year. The cost
> of intitutional subscription is around 2000 USD per journal. They
> provide also indvidual subscription but only to the their members. It
> is relatively easy to become an ACS member - but WMF cannot help too
> much with this. Maybe it would be more clever to grant access to the
> top scientific databases - for example for most active editors
> -leading wikiprojects...
>
> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of

scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are hundred
thousands, if not millions).

>
>
> --
> Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
> http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
> http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
> http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[phoebe ayers-3]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Tomasz Ganicz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/3/8 Juergen Fenn <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>
>> Am 08.03.11 20:46, schrieb Samuel Klein:
>>> Melissa -- absolutely!  I don't know the real stats, but I think we
>>> cite OA jornals far more than any others in Wikipedia for this reason.
>>
>> Which is certainly a rather bad idea because what always counts first
>> must be the quality of content, not the license of a citation or whether
>> its available on-line or printed only.
>>
>
> Yes.. as well as there are areas of research for which there is no OER
> journals at all. Anyway - I don't think if WMF could afford providing
> access to scientific journals in aby scalable way. For example top
> chemistry journals published by American Chemical Society can be
> subscribed by institution - but in contract there is a limitation to a
> selected range of IP numbers and maximum download per year. The cost
> of intitutional subscription is around 2000 USD per journal.

Ha! I wish it were that cheap.

Some journals only cost hundreds, some many thousands. Some (OA) are
free to the reader. See:
http://www.arl.org/sparc/pricing/  or, for a more entertaining
website, see:  http://engineering.library.cornell.edu/about/StickerShock2

We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :)  This is
also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
you have in mind?

-- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Juergen Fenn]

Am 08.03.11 21:32, schrieb Andrea Zanni:

> BTW, do we (Wikimedia communtiy) have good and enstablished contacts with
> the open access community?

AFAIK, not on an official level. However, many wikipedians who are
scientists will certainly prefer to publish open access, and those who
are librarians will almost certainly push OA resources in their field.

Regards,
Jürgen.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Juergen Fenn]

Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:

>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are hundred
> thousands, if not millions).

That's right if you would negotiate with the publishers to have all
wikipedians take part in the the such a scheme, but access to academic
literature can only be offered to those authors who contribute regularly
and who are long-time part of a WikiProject or a Portal. Otherwise you
would have the effects you've described.

Regards,
Jürgen.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are
> hundred
> thousands, if not millions).

Limited to editors with 20,000 edits or more?

You have to ask, negotiate, etc.

Fred


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Andrea Zanni-2]

>
> We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
> including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :)  This is
> also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
> you have in mind?
>
> I was just waiting the librarians to weigh in :-)
I'm really not sure of what we can do together, but I certainly was
astonished when few years ago I learned about open access. We have many
things in common, and in a certain sense we are more closer to the OA
movement than the free software one.
Nonetheless, the OA is mainly known by librarians, and (at least in Italy)
few scholars and researchers.
I think the Wikimedia could do his part to promote OA, and discuss with
members of OA to build common strategies. Or at least get to know each
other, there are plenty of things we can learn from one another.

Furthermore, another direction could be discuss about licensing: OA has a
"weird" form of licensing scholarship, and a way to make the main OA
licenses (e.g Bethesda) compatible with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA could be an huge
step forward.

Obviously, my 2 cents.

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Stephanie Daugherty]

As far as academic journals go most people have some access and don't know
it. Most public libraries subscribe to one or more services, and a library
card is all they need for that access.

Any wmf sponsored access plan needs to keep this in mind and encourage
editors to use access they already have first.

If we did that and limited to established editors by request we could
probably license by number of seats and come out ahead with respect to
efficient use of resources. Targeting these efforts towards areas of
systematic bias would also be a way in which the foundation could gently
steer projects without actually exerting any editorial control.
Anyway great brainstorming hope something comes of it.
 On Mar 8, 2011 3:54 PM, "Andrea Zanni" <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Samuel Klein-2]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>
>> We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
>> including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :)  This is
>> also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
>> you have in mind?
>>
>> I was just waiting the librarians to weigh in :-)
> I'm really not sure of what we can do together, but I certainly was
> astonished when few years ago I learned about open access. We have many
> things in common, and in a certain sense we are more closer to the OA
> movement than the free software one.
> Nonetheless, the OA is mainly known by librarians, and (at least in Italy)
> few scholars and researchers.

Perhaps we can help bridge the gap.

> I think the Wikimedia could do his part to promote OA, and discuss with
> members of OA to build common strategies. Or at least get to know each
> other, there are plenty of things we can learn from one another.

Plenty of things.  How does OA target audiences to embrace their
vision for open access to journals?  How could we promote a similar
vision for open access to knowledge -- in a way that could influence
other sorts of authors and publishers?

> Furthermore, another direction could be discuss about licensing: OA has a
> "weird" form of licensing scholarship, and a way to make the main OA
> licenses (e.g Bethesda) compatible with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA could be an huge
> step forward.

I entirely agree.  At the very least, coming up with a name in the OA
framework for a CC-SA-compatible license (and the acceptance of reuse
that this entails) would help us have these conversations without each
side running up against unfamiliar jargon.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
>> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are
>> hundred
>> thousands, if not millions).
>
> Limited to editors with 20,000 edits or more?
>
> You have to ask, negotiate, etc.

IMO this should be done through the chapters, which are member based
organisations, and they can choose whether it is necessary in their
country.

In Australia we also have very good access available through public
and university libraries, but often people arn't aware of the
resources they can access if they ask.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[thurner rupert-2]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 21:50, Juergen Fenn <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
>
>>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
>> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are hundred
>> thousands, if not millions).
>
> That's right if you would negotiate with the publishers to have all
> wikipedians take part in the the such a scheme, but access to academic
> literature can only be offered to those authors who contribute regularly
> and who are long-time part of a WikiProject or a Portal. Otherwise you
> would have the effects you've described.
>

there might be another effect, which is imo more critical:
one might argue that paying somebody to do the opposite of openining
up the knowledge under a free license is completely against the basic
mission of wmf, and the whole free knowledge movement. my personal
guess is that quite a high number of people / donators do not like
this.

rupert.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Melissa Hagemann]

On Mar 8, 2011, "Andrea Zanni" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > We certainly have many individual contacts with the OA community,
> > including Melissa Hagemann, who is on our advisory board :)  This is
> > also an area of professional work for me. What kinds of lobbying did
> > you have in mind?
> >
> > I was just waiting the librarians to weigh in :-)
> I'm really not sure of what we can do together, but I certainly was
> astonished when few years ago I learned about open access. We have
many
> things in common, and in a certain sense we are more closer to the OA
> movement than the free software one.
> Nonetheless, the OA is mainly known by librarians, and (at least in
Italy)
> few scholars and researchers.
> I think the Wikimedia could do his part to promote OA, and discuss
with
> members of OA to build common strategies. Or at least get to know each
> other, there are plenty of things we can learn from one another.

It would be wonderful if we could find a way for the WMF and OA
communities to more closely collaborate. Aubrey is right in that to a
large extent, OA is not well known outside the library community. Given
the reach of WMF, there seems that there must be a way to try to raise
greater awareness of the materials which are being made available
through OA.

And if there is interest in advocating on this issue, SPARC developed
the Alliance for Taxpayer Access
(http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/index.shtml) which represents
universities, libraries, patient advocacy groups, and physicians working
to promote OA.

> Furthermore, another direction could be discuss about licensing: OA
has a
> "weird" form of licensing scholarship, and a way to make the main OA
> licenses (e.g Bethesda) compatible with CC-BY or CC-BY-SA could be an
huge
> step forward.

Many OA journals use CC-BY and the DOAJ promotes its use, see
http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=080423.

Melissa

>
> Aubrey
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[George Herbert]

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, THURNER rupert
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 21:50, Juergen Fenn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
>>
>>>> AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I bet
>>> they would make us unbearable fees (in fact the potential users are hundred
>>> thousands, if not millions).
>>
>> That's right if you would negotiate with the publishers to have all
>> wikipedians take part in the the such a scheme, but access to academic
>> literature can only be offered to those authors who contribute regularly
>> and who are long-time part of a WikiProject or a Portal. Otherwise you
>> would have the effects you've described.
>>
>
> there might be another effect, which is imo more critical:
> one might argue that paying somebody to do the opposite of openining
> up the knowledge under a free license is completely against the basic
> mission of wmf, and the whole free knowledge movement. my personal
> guess is that quite a high number of people / donators do not like
> this.
>
> rupert.

We should have no illusion that the WMF or open content movement will
zero out the production of copyrighted and not-freely-licensed content
- most authors of books, most movie studios, most musicians depend on
revenue streams currently mostly unavailable under open content
licensing for their day to day income.  Lacking a total replacement
financial structure for the arts we cannot hope to affect complete
change.

The situation with regards to scientific journals varies somewhat, but
we can't imagine that all the content will just open up immediately.
Especially the legacy content.

Our encyclopedia (and other project) user community - the readers, not
the editors - derive significant value from citing sources and quoting
references which are the best available sources and references,
regardless of their copyright status and open content availability.

They would also gain from full access to the underlying journals and
citations and references, yes, but their primary benefit is that we're
reviewing and creating quality overview articles from the references.

We should encourage open content in every way.  But not dealing with
non-open content isn't a good choice.  Most contributors (financial
and volunteer) understand this, I hope.


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[John Vandenberg]

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Melissa Hagemann <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ..
> It would be wonderful if we could find a way for the WMF and OA
> communities to more closely collaborate. Aubrey is right in that to a
> large extent, OA is not well known outside the library community. Given
> the reach of WMF, there seems that there must be a way to try to raise
> greater awareness of the materials which are being made available
> through OA.

There is an ever-increasing number of Wikipedia articles about
journals, and they mention open access in the infobox ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceedings_of_the_National_Academy_of_Sciences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AJ

> And if there is interest in advocating on this issue, SPARC developed
> the Alliance for Taxpayer Access
> (http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/index.shtml) which represents
> universities, libraries, patient advocacy groups, and physicians working
> to promote OA.

I haven't heard of this before.

The website/campaign name begs a lot of questions.

"Why tax-payer access only?"
"What copyright license allows for tax-payer only redistribution?"

;-)

If I understand correctly, they are promoting unrestricted access to
tax-payer funded research.  Do they explicitly want govt-funded
research to be public domain, like US federal works are, and therefore
accessible to everyone, in every country?

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l