Black market science

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Black market science

David Gerard-2
http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/

People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the
damn science.

This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access
message. You cannot do science in a system with these effects.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

geni
On 26 June 2011 21:12, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/
>
> People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the
> damn science.
>
> This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access
> message.

While back channel paper exchange is pretty common I doubt that the
people stealing passwords are actually doing much in the way of
science. Things are so specialised these days that people doing much
in the way of serious science probably know the dozen or so other
people in their field well enough for them be to emailed their papers
directly.

While there are many many things wrong with the current scientific
publishing model (start with it's a parasite with lower ethical
standards than Microsoft and then work your way up) I don't think a
trade in passwords in indicative of much.

I don't know much about the situation in the humanities though.

>You cannot do science in a system with these effects.

In fairness you demonstrably can. Of course it's an open question how
many people really are.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Tom Morris-5
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 22:03, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't know much about the situation in the humanities though.
>

There's a nice little undercurrent of paper exchange - some legitimate
(asking the author for copies, getting PDFs from author websites,
getting stuff from university pre-print draft repositories), some not
so legitimate (*cough*BitTorrent*cough*) - much as there is in
science, dampened only by the fact that less work in the humanities is
done in journal papers and more in books.

Sadly, compared to science, the embrace of the alternative (open
access, Creative Commons etc.) is very slow. Although the argument for
public access and against oligopoly publishers that is used for open
access science also applies in the humanities, in science it is
strengthened by the desire for open access data that the published
study draw on be also be made available online, while in, say,
philosophy, Plato and Kant are already meet the 'open access'
standard. ;-)

A lot of the slightly older stuff is in JSTOR, which isn't open
access, but the access requirements demanded of subscribing
institutions go in the 'fairly expensive' category rather than the
'brutally fisted with stinging nettles by Satan himself' category.

--
Tom Morris
<http://tommorris.org/>

Please don't print this e-mail out unless you want a hard copy of
it. If you do, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I waste your
ink/toner with 300+ lines of completely pointless and legally
unenforceable cargo cult blather about corporate confidentiality.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

David Richfield
The system of charging readers for distribution of scientific information is
fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia demonstrates that it is cheap to host data.
Reviewers don't get paid. Companies pay plenty to advertise in journals. Why
do I have to pay $50 to read someone's research?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Kim Bruning
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 09:12:09PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
> http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/
>
> People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the
> damn science.
>
> This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access
> message. You cannot do science in a system with these effects.

Might be a good point in time to point out "right to read" to those who haven't read it yet?

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

sincerely,
        Kim Bruning

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Alec Conroy-2
In reply to this post by David Richfield
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:45 PM, David Richfield
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> The system of charging readers for distribution of scientific information is
> fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia demonstrates that it is cheap to host data.
> Reviewers don't get paid. Companies pay plenty to advertise in journals. Why
> do I have to pay $50 to read someone's research?

We need a Wikijournal project, where scientists can do all the
functions of a journal without any prior approval--  collectively form
groups, review, and publish.
Free content is going to capture science eventually-- scientists want
open content too badly for the research journal monopoly to last
forever.    The only question is-- how can WM help ignite this
revolution waiting to happen?  If we're really lucky, can we ourselves
be the home to the successor of the for-profit journal system.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

David Gerard-2
On 6 July 2011 20:58, Alec Conroy <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We need a Wikijournal project, where scientists can do all the
> functions of a journal without any prior approval--  collectively form
> groups, review, and publish.
> Free content is going to capture science eventually-- scientists want
> open content too badly for the research journal monopoly to last
> forever.    The only question is-- how can WM help ignite this
> revolution waiting to happen?  If we're really lucky, can we ourselves
> be the home to the successor of the for-profit journal system.


Academic peer-review is a rather un-wiki process. Possibly a first
step is encouraging arXiv-like preprint archives for other fields -
arXiv has become pretty much *the* first place to stake out your
credit in physics.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Arlen Beiler
Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
something along that line.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6 July 2011 20:58, Alec Conroy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > We need a Wikijournal project, where scientists can do all the
> > functions of a journal without any prior approval--  collectively form
> > groups, review, and publish.
> > Free content is going to capture science eventually-- scientists want
> > open content too badly for the research journal monopoly to last
> > forever.    The only question is-- how can WM help ignite this
> > revolution waiting to happen?  If we're really lucky, can we ourselves
> > be the home to the successor of the for-profit journal system.
>
>
> Academic peer-review is a rather un-wiki process. Possibly a first
> step is encouraging arXiv-like preprint archives for other fields -
> arXiv has become pretty much *the* first place to stake out your
> credit in physics.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

David Gerard-2
On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
> CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
> suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
> something along that line.


Remember that en:wp's "no original research" rule was invented for
physics cranks. And even with fairly light moderation, arXiv features
some spectacularly gibbering [[green ink]]. This will need some
thought to create something that's actually useful to anyone,
anywhere, ever.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Alec Conroy-2
> Remember that en:wp's "no original research" rule was invented for
> physics cranks. And even with fairly light moderation, arXiv features
> some spectacularly gibbering [[green ink]]. This will need some
> thought to create something that's actually useful to anyone,
> anywhere, ever.

A "free journal" would be very unlike our existing projects.   The
scientists need to be able to just take their entire publication
process to a free platform-- with no other alterations in how they do
things.   Science is its own community, so it wouldn't be a project
that 'anyone can edit', it would a project that does exactly what the
existing process does, except for free.

And being free is inherently better.  Nobody who spends two years of
their life on a two page article wants to see it hidden behind a pay
wall.    Scientists really want to be free, they just need the right
partner to help them.

Alec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
2011/7/6 David Gerard <[hidden email]>

> On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to
> be
> > CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
> > suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
> > something along that line.
>

As I see it, there are some technical/organizational issues.
Wikisource accepts CC-BY-SA/CC-BY texts (and often OA articles use these
licenses), but does not change the text it self, only maybe in terms of
format and layout. It's a policy of the project to be absolutely coherent
with the source. This solves the issue of modifying the article itslef, and
having it in the exact words of the author.

But the current architecture is designed for digitization of paper books: as
I see it, we lack a simple, easy way to upload and show born digital
documents, as scientific articles would be.
I mean, we can always (and sometimes we do) ri-shape articles in wikitext
and put them in the ns0 of Wikisource,
or event upload the article on Commons and re-transcribe the text with the
pdf as a scan, but you see this is reinventing the wheel, everytime.
I still don't know how could we do, but I feel that we should have a more
automatic way to upload this kind of content (and then giving it our added
value, as wikilinks etc.) (for example, we could accept latex as it is...)

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Ting Chen-2
On de.wikisource.org they scan every page of the original text, upload
the scan on Commons and show the scan on the right part of every page as
an image. It is even obligatory to have the original scan of the text.

The following page is an example:
http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Oberamt_Tettnang_231.jpg (I just hit
the random page)

Greetings
Ting


Am 07.07.2011 07:57, schrieb Andrea Zanni:

> 2011/7/6 David Gerard<[hidden email]>
>
>> On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>
>>> Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to
>> be
>>> CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
>>> suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
>>> something along that line.
> As I see it, there are some technical/organizational issues.
> Wikisource accepts CC-BY-SA/CC-BY texts (and often OA articles use these
> licenses), but does not change the text it self, only maybe in terms of
> format and layout. It's a policy of the project to be absolutely coherent
> with the source. This solves the issue of modifying the article itslef, and
> having it in the exact words of the author.
>
> But the current architecture is designed for digitization of paper books: as
> I see it, we lack a simple, easy way to upload and show born digital
> documents, as scientific articles would be.
> I mean, we can always (and sometimes we do) ri-shape articles in wikitext
> and put them in the ns0 of Wikisource,
> or event upload the article on Commons and re-transcribe the text with the
> pdf as a scan, but you see this is reinventing the wheel, everytime.
> I still don't know how could we do, but I feel that we should have a more
> automatic way to upload this kind of content (and then giving it our added
> value, as wikilinks etc.) (for example, we could accept latex as it is...)
>
> Aubrey
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Andrea Zanni-2
2011/7/7 Ting Chen <[hidden email]>

> On de.wikisource.org they scan every page of the original text, upload
> the scan on Commons and show the scan on the right part of every page as
> an image. It is even obligatory to have the original scan of the text.
>
> The following page is an example:
> http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Oberamt_Tettnang_231.jpg (I just hit
> the random page)
>

I know - in fact, it was exactly what I wanted to explain :-)
I think this system is perfect for digitized documents, aka paper documents
which has been scanned and need transcription.

MVHO is that the same system is redundant for born-digital documents.
If we use the Proofread Extension (that's how it's called), you need to
re-transcribe the whole text, or at least have it formatted. Then you
transclude the text in ns0.
The text is reliable, but it is a lot of work, and lot of it is just
redundant (why write by hand something tha has just benn written in a good
pdf?).

If we use the simple ns0 (many wikisources are not so sctrict as de.source
in this regard) you need to do the same (transform in wikitext, format). So
the issues remain.

Now, I was wondering if we can find another (technical? organizational?
political?)solution for born-digital documents, as pdf, scientific articles
etc.

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

metasj
There are some extensions out there to accept latex and convert it to
wikitext.  CK12 used one, I believe.
That seems like an easy improvement to wikisource, not a separate project.

I agree that we could have a wikijournal for contemporary publication
- as a WS namespace if not a separate project.   PLoS and arXiv offer
some guidelines for low-overhead moderation, and we could have a
'quarantine' for possible crank submissions that are posted but not
yet given that light review.  We have enough attention now in most
sciences, if not in every field, to get input from solid reviewers.

S.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:50 AM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/7/7 Ting Chen <[hidden email]>
>
>> On de.wikisource.org they scan every page of the original text, upload
>> the scan on Commons and show the scan on the right part of every page as
>> an image. It is even obligatory to have the original scan of the text.
>>
>> The following page is an example:
>> http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Oberamt_Tettnang_231.jpg (I just hit
>> the random page)
>>
>
> I know - in fact, it was exactly what I wanted to explain :-)
> I think this system is perfect for digitized documents, aka paper documents
> which has been scanned and need transcription.
>
> MVHO is that the same system is redundant for born-digital documents.
> If we use the Proofread Extension (that's how it's called), you need to
> re-transcribe the whole text, or at least have it formatted. Then you
> transclude the text in ns0.
> The text is reliable, but it is a lot of work, and lot of it is just
> redundant (why write by hand something tha has just benn written in a good
> pdf?).
>
> If we use the simple ns0 (many wikisources are not so sctrict as de.source
> in this regard) you need to do the same (transform in wikitext, format). So
> the issues remain.
>
> Now, I was wondering if we can find another (technical? organizational?
> political?)solution for born-digital documents, as pdf, scientific articles
> etc.
>
> Aubrey
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Birgitte_sb
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2




On Jul 7, 2011, at 2:50 AM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/7/7 Ting Chen <[hidden email]>
>
>> On de.wikisource.org they scan every page of the original text, upload
>> the scan on Commons and show the scan on the right part of every page as
>> an image. It is even obligatory to have the original scan of the text.
>>
>> The following page is an example:
>> http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Seite:Oberamt_Tettnang_231.jpg (I just hit
>> the random page)
>>
>
> I know - in fact, it was exactly what I wanted to explain :-)
> I think this system is perfect for digitized documents, aka paper documents
> which has been scanned and need transcription.
>
> MVHO is that the same system is redundant for born-digital documents.
> If we use the Proofread Extension (that's how it's called), you need to
> re-transcribe the whole text, or at least have it formatted. Then you
> transclude the text in ns0.
> The text is reliable, but it is a lot of work, and lot of it is just
> redundant (why write by hand something tha has just benn written in a good
> pdf?).
>
> If we use the simple ns0 (many wikisources are not so sctrict as de.source
> in this regard) you need to do the same (transform in wikitext, format). So
> the issues remain.
>
> Now, I was wondering if we can find another (technical? organizational?
> political?)solution for born-digital documents, as pdf, scientific articles
> etc.



You hardly need to re-transcribe the digital document.  You just need to re-format the images and special text within the paste, edit in appropriate wikilinks, and proofread it to ensure nothing was misplaced.  Proofreading is not at all redundant for documents that have been re-formatted with only the  lightest editing. I am certain you will find something to correct in any document of length, no matter how little editing you feel you have done.  Having a corpus with some depth on Wikisource will open up a much different reading experience than an index of PDFs, even though the words all match. Just look at what is being done with the SCOTUS documents,  Wikis simply offer a richer study environment for documents that are properly linked together than other sorts of digital libraries. For all that born digital documents emphasize the "digital" they often treat the text as if printed on a page by regularly using hypertext only in footnoted references. It is worth putting such things on Wikisource, if you can anticipate being able to get a decent sized corpus of scholarship of some field under a free license.  And that will vary by field and maybe even sub-specialty.

BirgitteSB
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:42 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
>> CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
>> suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
>> something along that line.
>
>
> Remember that en:wp's "no original research" rule was invented for
> physics cranks. And even with fairly light moderation, arXiv features
> some spectacularly gibbering [[green ink]]. This will need some
> thought to create something that's actually useful to anyone,
> anywhere, ever.
>
>
> - d.
>

Not entirely true. In the very early days, we had a quite considerable
contingent of cranks pushing novel interpretations of history
or literatrary theory etc. The problem there is that in those cases it
wasn't blindingly obvious that they were cranks, because they
tended to be discursive geniuses, in the genuine sense, rather
than dribbling idiots like the physics cranks. And then there those
who straddled both worlds, like the 'pataphysiscs loonies.



--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Birgitte_sb
2011/7/9 <[hidden email]>

> You hardly need to re-transcribe the digital document.  You just need to
> re-format the images and special text within the paste, edit in appropriate
> wikilinks, and proofread it to ensure nothing was misplaced.
>

Yes, this is true, but as you know well this already much work.
If you are a scholar/student, and you want to share an article or a
dissertation,
you need to know a lot of about the architecture of Wikisource, and recreate
the logical structure of a thesis, format it in wiki-text and proofread
throurogh 3 quality levels in not a simple, easy job.

> Proofreading is not at all redundant for documents that have been
> re-formatted with only the lightest editing. I am certain you will find
> something to correct in any document of length, no matter how little editing
> you feel you have done.
>
I agree, but I always feel a little discomfort when I know that proofreading
has just been done on a born-digital text, and I need to spend hours on that
text just to find some typos (maybe it's me, but sometimes I don't find it
worth it)

> Having a corpus with some depth on Wikisource will open up a much different
> reading experience than an index of PDFs, even though the words all match.
> Just look at what is being done with the SCOTUS documents,  Wikis simply
> offer a richer study environment for documents that are properly linked
> together than other sorts of digital libraries. For all that born digital
> documents emphasize the "digital" they often treat the text as if printed on
> a page by regularly using hypertext only in footnoted references. It is
> worth putting such things on Wikisource, if you can anticipate being able to
> get a decent sized corpus of scholarship of some field under a free license.
>  And that will vary by field and maybe even sub-specialty.
>

Yes, it is definiw ittely worth it to put all these text on Wikisource.
I uploaded my thesis years ago, also with the explicit aim to test the
potential hypertextual features of Wikisource (in it.source we have proper
template for Work and Author citations, and I find them the real added value
of our digital library).

My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the amount
of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) is that if for people is a
difficult, overcomplicated burden to upload a PDF in an institutional
repository (5 minutes of their time, even less), how can we wikilibrarians
think that they will come to us and upload and "curate" their text? I
clearly remeber the "Screw it" feeling I had the day after I graduated,
meaning that I would not even touch my thesis again for the next months (and
so it was).

I'm not offering solutions here, but if we want to work in the direction of
Open Access and of reaching a massive audience out there, maybe we should
think out of the (current) box.

Aubrey

BirgitteSB

> _______________________________________________
> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Birgitte_sb




On Jul 9, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2011/7/9 <[hidden email]>
>
>> Snip
>
>> Having a corpus with some depth on Wikisource will open up a much different
>> reading experience than an index of PDFs, even though the words all match.
>> Just look at what is being done with the SCOTUS documents,  Wikis simply
>> offer a richer study environment for documents that are properly linked
>> together than other sorts of digital libraries. For all that born digital
>> documents emphasize the "digital" they often treat the text as if printed on
>> a page by regularly using hypertext only in footnoted references. It is
>> worth putting such things on Wikisource, if you can anticipate being able to
>> get a decent sized corpus of scholarship of some field under a free license.
>> And that will vary by field and maybe even sub-specialty.
>>
>
> Yes, it is definiw ittely worth it to put all these text on Wikisource.
> I uploaded my thesis years ago, also with the explicit aim to test the
> potential hypertextual features of Wikisource (in it.source we have proper
> template for Work and Author citations, and I find them the real added value
> of our digital library).
>
> My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the amount
> of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) is that if for people is a
> difficult, overcomplicated burden to upload a PDF in an institutional
> repository (5 minutes of their time, even less), how can we wikilibrarians
> think that they will come to us and upload and "curate" their text? I
> clearly remeber the "Screw it" feeling I had the day after I graduated,
> meaning that I would not even touch my thesis again for the next months (and
> so it was).
>
> I'm not offering solutions here, but if we want to work in the direction of
> Open Access and of reaching a massive audience out there, maybe we should
> think out of the (current) box.
>
>

I wouldn't really expect authors adding their thesis to Wikisource piecemeal, at least unitil there is some critical mass reached in their area of scholarship.  It would be probably started by someone more interested in creating well-linked coverage of a topic. Definitely it needs someone with a strong interest in curating schorship of Foo in big-picture way.

BirgitteSB
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

metasj
In reply to this post by Andrea Zanni-2
Andrea,  I hear you suggesting that we need a different upload process
for pdfs and other documents, wherein when you upload them there is a
"digital document to paged wikitext" script that runs and generates an
appropriate result, which can then be imported elsewhere on the
projects as needed.

> My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the amount
> of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) is that if for people is a
> difficult, overcomplicated burden to upload a PDF in an institutional
> repository (5 minutes of their time, even less), how can we wikilibrarians
> think that they will come to us and upload and "curate" their text?

Right - these should be doable by different people.  An ambassador to
an institutional repository should be able to collect approving
signatures and do a bulk upload him/herself.

--
Sam.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Black market science

Andrea Zanni-2
2011/7/12 Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>:
> Andrea,  I hear you suggesting that we need a different upload process
> for pdfs and other documents, wherein when you upload them there is a
> "digital document to paged wikitext" script that runs and generates an
> appropriate result, which can then be imported elsewhere on the
> projects as needed.

Yes, something like this.
I mean, if we want, as Wikisource, to start collecting born-digital
text we should think something that does the bulk work.


>> My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the amount
>> of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) is that if for people is a
>> difficult, overcomplicated burden to upload a PDF in an institutional
>> repository (5 minutes of their time, even less), how can we wikilibrarians
>> think that they will come to us and upload and "curate" their text?
>
> Right - these should be doable by different people.  An ambassador to
> an institutional repository should be able to collect approving
> signatures and do a bulk upload him/herself.

Yep.
We should discover if signature should be needed: maybe, we could even
download them without telling anyone,
if they use compatible licenses (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA: I'm not sure about
Berlin decalration and such).

And if Wikisource (or Commons) would have an OAI-PMH extension,
we could directly harvest from repositories, on a montlhy basis.
(but as we all know this point still needs much work) :-)

Aubrey

> --
> Sam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
12