[Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

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

[Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Milos Rancic-2
Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If
so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub,
LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek

--
Milos

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Andrea Zanni-2
As much as I'd **love** to see that,
I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable
BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.

Aubrey

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Is WMF or any other Wikimedia organization still engaged with them? If
> so, what's the plan to drop that toxic connection and support Sci-Hub,
> LibGen and similar projects? EFF did that two months ago [1].
>
> [1]
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/what-if-elsevier-and-researchers-quit-playing-hide-and-seek
>
> --
> Milos
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Milos Rancic-2
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a despicable
> BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.

There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
projects.


--
Milos

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Robert Fernandez
The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
 (Here's my take on that debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial).
I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
abandon this arrangement.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> despicable
> > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
>
> There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> projects.
>
>
> --
> Milos
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Pete Forsyth-2
Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
proprietary sources of information:
http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/

On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
Access publishing advocates.

-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
(I convened and moderated the panel)

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
>  (Here's my take on that debate:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> ).
> I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> abandon this arrangement.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > despicable
> > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> >
> > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > projects.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Milos
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Robert Fernandez
I watched this remotely, good stuff.  Everyone seemed to be in basic
agreement on the issues.

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Please see the video archive and blog posts from our panel discussion about
> the Wikipedia Library and its engagement with Elsevier and various
> proprietary sources of information:
> http://wikistrategies.net/oa-wikipedia-panel/
>
> On the panel were Jake Orlowitz of the Wikipedia library, and several Open
> Access publishing advocates.
>
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> (I convened and moderated the panel)
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> > Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
> >  (Here's my take on that debate:
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial
> > ).
> > I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> > abandon this arrangement.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <
> [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > As much as I'd **love** to see that,
> > > > I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
> > > > supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
> > > despicable
> > > > BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
> > > > If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
> > >
> > > There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
> > > and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
> > > projects.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Milos
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Vi to
In reply to this post by Robert Fernandez
Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them
into the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most
closed sources.

Vito

Il 14/02/2016 22:13, Robert Fernandez ha scritto:

> The Wikimedia Library distributes donated accounts from Elsevier to
> Wikipedia editors.  This was the subject of some debate last September.
>   (Here's my take on that debate:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-09-16/Editorial).
> I cannot speak for them, but I do not believe they have any plans to
> abandon this arrangement.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Andrea Zanni <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>> As much as I'd **love** to see that,
>>> I think it would be a very bold step from the WMF,
>>> supporting a heroic BUT illegal operation as Sci-Hub, against a
>> despicable
>>> BUT legal operation like Elsevier.
>>> If the WMF does want to be bold, this is a great battle to fight.
>> There is nothing risky in: (1) dropping all connections with Elsevier
>> and (2) expressing moral support to Sci-Hub, LibGen and similar
>> projects.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Milos
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> New messages to: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Milos Rancic-2
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them into
> the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed
> sources.

Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's
not valid excuse.

--
Milos

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
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.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 14 February 2016 at 22:52, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Vituzzu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Matter of fact we take informations from a closed system putting them
> into
> > the greater open World. So, imho, we should use even the most closed
> > sources.
>
> Wikipedia editors could use Sci-Hub instead of Elsevier. So, that's
> not valid excuse.
>
> --
> Milos
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Milos Rancic-2
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Lodewijk
Hi Milos,

that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
overwhelming consensus.

I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.

Lodewijk

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Milos Rancic-2
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
> ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
> editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
> overwhelming consensus.
>
> I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.

Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
and Wikimedia movement.

Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.

Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.

Until few months ago, connection with Elsevier could have been
tolerated as edgy, but useful. However, we are now in completely
different situation. I hear *our* friends are under high pressure
because of this and I just hope all of them are more emotionally tough
than Aaron was.

Now, hypocritical people all over Wikimedia movement think it's fine
to tolerate such connection. Because it doesn't hurt us and they are
giving us cookies. It hurts just people belonging to our wider
movement, whom we accidentally know. Why should we care about them?

Besides being legally obligated or having overwhelming consensus, I
suppose we have some values, some moral obligations and backbone.

--
Milos

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

John Mark Vandenberg
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the
>> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing
>> ties with an organisation that offers something that is useful to the
>> editing community, either when legally obligated, or when there is an
>> overwhelming consensus.
>>
>> I don't sense such overwhelming consensus just yet.
>
> Having connection with Elsevier by WMF and not having "overwhelming
> consensus" between us on this issue -- after Elsevier started
> litigation against Sci-Hub -- are highly hypocritical positions of WMF
> and Wikimedia movement.
>
> Similar litigation produced the death of Aaron Swartz. In his case, it
> was JSTOR, which initiated the trial.
>
> Fortunately, WMF didn't make any deal with JSTOR but with Elsevier, as
> it would be direct attack on Aaron's legacy.

Actually, they did...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:JSTOR&oldid=485563919

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
"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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Pete Forsyth-2
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 <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Shani Evenstein
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Milos Rancic-2
Hoi,
Yes it is intentionally. There is enough shit going on and we need not pile
more on at this time. So move on.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 14 February 2016 at 23:01, Milos Rancic <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Keegan Peterzell
In reply to this post by Shani Evenstein
Shani,

This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
year and directly addresses this issue:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/

~ Keegan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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 <
> [hidden email]>
> > 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

David Goodman-2
We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have it,
at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus make
it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.

If all we did was re-package information that was already freely available,
our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this system
is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple ways.
Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
 writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
what will be best for the encyclopedia.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Shani,
>
> This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
> year and directly addresses this issue:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
>
> ~ Keegan
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > 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 <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > > <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

Andrea Zanni-2
As much as I love Jake and Alex's work,
and I think they are doing a terrific job, we still have to acknowledge
that
"playing by the rules" here is not going to change anything.
Every time the academia says "we have to think about Science!", so they
play along, keeping the system alive and well.

Without withdrawing from the current partnership, we could say publicly
that we hope they will stop suing Sci-Hub. We could write a blogpost, with
a link to Sci-hub (*blink blink*) acknowledging that is illegal but also
that serves the purpose of fighting the good fight.

As I said in previous discussion, what WMF really lacks is a precise
policy/project *in favor* of Open Access: we are not doing anything at
higher level, and very promising projects are frozen or waiting for
volunteer good will. I personally think that we are making a big mistake
thinking that the OA movement can do well without us. It's not.

Aubrey




On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:16 AM, David Goodman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have the purpose of providing free access to information, information
> from any publicly  accessible source, paid or free. Before we had the
> Wikipedia Library, sources of information from many extremely expensive
> paid sources were not readily available to our editors except for those
> having a connection to a major university library.  Now that we do have it,
> at least some of this is accessible to at least some active editors, who
> can incorporate the information from them into our articles, and thus make
> it freely accessible to the world. That's enough justification.
>
> If all we did was re-package information that was already freely available,
> our role would be very  limited. The existence of restrictions on  access
> to limitation is of course very unfortunate. Making a change in this system
> is on of the additional purposes of Wikipedia. We do this in multiple ways.
> Among them is providing an example of open publishing; among them is
> advocacy for the lessening of copyright and other restrictions, and also
>  writing free material based on unfree. The principle of what we do is,
> what will be best for the encyclopedia.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keegan Peterzell <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Shani,
> >
> > This blog post by Jake and the Library team might suffice. It's from last
> > year and directly addresses this issue:
> >
> > http://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/09/16/open-access-in-a-closed-world/
> >
> > ~ Keegan
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
> > On Feb 14, 2016 10:09 PM, "Shani" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > 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 <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > 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 <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > > > <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:[hidden email]
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David Goodman
>
> DGG at the enWP
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12