Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Harvard Library Innovation Lab

If it hasn't started already, collaborating with the Harvard Library Innovation Lab would benefit both organizations. Adding some of the Lab's pertinent resources to appropriate Wikipedia Library lists would be a great start. (I searched within the project and across en.Wikipedia.org but did not find the Lab listed or discussed. There is a Wikipedia article for Perma.cc.) Here is some info from the Lab's website:

Harvard Library Innovation Lab
Harvard Law School Library, Langdell Hall
1545 MASSACHUSETTS AVE
CAMBRIDGE MA 02138-2903
phone: (617) 495-3455
web: https://lil.law.harvard.edu/
email: lil@law.harvard.edu
twitter: @HarvardLIL
github: harvard-lil

Innovation Lab Projects

Listed below are three Harvard Library Innovation Lab projects.

Project: Caselaw Access

The Caselaw Access Project (“CAP”) expands public access to U.S. law. Our goal is to make all published U.S. court decisions freely available to the public online, in a consistent format, digitized from the collection of the Harvard Law Library.

email: info@case.law

• Search cases with an intuitive, powerful search engine interface.

• The API allows users to browse and download cases using a few short commands.

• Historical Trends lets you visualize the use of terms over time in caselaw.

Project: Perma.cc

Perma.cc prevents link rot.

Links to digital sources can fail: the information at a URL can be modified or deleted and the intention of a reference can be lost. This isn’t necessarily a big deal for a basic blog, but it makes a difference for scholarship, legal writing, and any instance where the information cited is part of the logical framework of the content. Perma.cc prevents this failure — called link rot — by archiving a copy of the digital source and preserving it in perpetuity through our network of libraries and institutional partners.

Technical info (on GitHub)

Project: H2O

H2O: Build a better casebook. H2O helps law faculty create high quality, open-licensed digital textbooks for free.

Fast, Simple and Free: Collect materials, hide and annotate text, and distribute casebooks to your students quickly and reliably. H2O is easy to add to your class.

Open Access: All materials in H2O are licensed CC BY-NC-SA and free to copy, reuse and remix.

Library-Powered: H2O is made by the Harvard Law School Library and designed carefully to serve faculty and student needs.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

HeinOnline status

Would anyone be able to share an update about HeinOnline? I was able to access HeinOnline, but my credentials stopped working about a week ago. Per the access request page [1], there is a waiting list, but only 3 of 25 slots are taken. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That account count is erroneous because of some back-end changes, but there will be available accounts within the next few weeks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking a Wikipedian In Residence! (U.S.)

Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).

The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.

This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.

PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice that subscriptions need to be renewed

Hi Sam, is it feasible for us to be reminded when our subscriptions are about to run out? My newspapers.com subscription has stopped again, which means the article I was working on is on hold. During a discussion about this last year, you mentioned this suggestion that we be given a month's notice, but I can't tell what came of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: This is live for partnerships where we know the approximate expiry date, but unfortunately only took effect for applications which came in after the date that ticket was marked resolved. Now that you need to make a renewal request you'll get that reminder email approximately 11 months after it's approved! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Sam. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Message to Nikkimaria

Hi, I got a message from Nikkimaria to which I want to reply, but at the reply URL provided there's no obvious place to put my reply (at least, not obvious to me). It is about one of my Wikipedia Library applications or memberships, but Nikkimaria doesn't say which one. So here's the message and my reply:

As it has been some time since your application, could you please confirm that you are still interested in receiving access? We plan to start redistributing in a couple of weeks. Please reply to these at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/applications/evaluate/7860/

Thanks for asking. The Wikipedia Library has been very helpful to me, but I am no longer interested, as I prefer to cite sources that are freely available. Best wishes -- Andrew Dalby 09:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I've had a message now to say my application has been denied. Perhaps it relates to the same application, in which case, all is well. Andrew Dalby 12:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry Library

Has there been any thought given to engaging with Ancestry.com to see if they would make subscriptions to their Ancestry Library platform available to The Wikipedia Library? Although Ancestry includes mostly primary sources, these are frequently invaluable in helping locate secondary sources; for example, dates of death discovered through Ancestry have frequently led me to obituaries on newspapers.com, and finding maiden, middle, or relatives' names, gives extra keywords to search for. Newspapers.com—which already partners with The Wikipedia Library—and Ancestry are related, making it likely that Ancestry would be receptive. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique, FYI Ancestry's made some of their content freely available during the COVID-19 crisis - not sure if that would cover what you're interested in. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Additionally some libraries have allowed offsite access to Ancestry for the duration of the pandemic. - kosboot (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, both. Yes, I currently have temporary offsite access as you mentioned. But temporary access is temporary, and it would be nice to have something in its place when this is all over. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

How to cite something in the Wikipedia library.

Hi, I want to use something from the British Medical Journal as a citation, but how am I meant to link it? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Berrely: We don't have any special requirements for citing content from the library, feel free to cite it as you would any other source! If you need help with citation styles generally, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Citing sources. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Why can't I access the article I want?

It's more than that. Because of COVID-19 I am cut off, hopefully temporarily, from one of the newspapers I like to read. If you believe going to the newspaper's web site will get you everything you want, I have the vaccine for COVID-19 right here ready for you to pay me to give you.

I just signed in at newspapers.com but when I tried to access the article I wanted I was told to sign up for a free trial or pay for what I wanted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

What article are you looking for? I have newspapers.com access through my university (partial but covers most of the archive). I could email it to you. CJK09 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

But it's not that simple. I haven't read this newspaper since the whole world shut down March 14. That's what I want to do.

However, what you can do is provide a link to the reference on WKJW. I had access to the archives of the newspaper in question a different way before I knew about newspapers.com.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If you join the Wikipedia Library, you'll get access to newspapers.com. Or are you saying you have a newspapers.com subscription and it still won't let you read articles? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee's access to Newspapers.com had simply expired and requires renewal (explained in more detail on our email thread) :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's not something others can see.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. My institutional subscription doesn't include the Asheville Citizen-Times. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful here. CJK09 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Mine does. I'll have to check to see if they approved it. Thanks anyway.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

And here is the email I have received:

Dear Vchimpanzee,

Thank you for applying for access to Newspapers.com resources through The Wikipedia Library. We are happy to inform you that your application has been approved.

You can expect to receive access details within a week or two once it has been processed.

Cheers!

The Wikipedia Library

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: — wait a few days more to get access email from JSTOR. The above message mentions You can expect to receive access details within a week or two once it has been processed. So, eventually, you need to wait for next email. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 19:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

JSTOR is not what I'm waiting on. And yes, I did see I can expect to wait another week or two.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: My error. I got access to JSTOR, so mentioned JSTOR. Bad phrasing. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 01:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I just got the response stating I have access, and I tried it and it works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Authentication-based access and the Library Bundle now available!

The Wikipedia Library is pleased to announce the implementation of authentication-based access and the Library Bundle! These new features will help improve your research workflow by minimizing the number of individual logins you need to remember, and by providing on-demand access to a set of partners to all qualifying users without the need for manual application and approval. Along with the launch of Bundle/EZProxy, we are happy to announce several major new partnerships are now available, including large multidisciplinary collections from Springer Nature and ProQuest. Check out your Bundle eligibility and the new available collections by logging in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. Please let me know if you have any questions, and feedback on the new systems can be left at the project page. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oxford University Press

Hello all, please I need some clarifications for the above mentioned. Why am I asked to pay for access when OUP had granted my access request on the library platform? Thanks! 2dmaxo (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@2dmaxo: It sounds like your access may have expired. Usually I would ask you to request a renewal, but we're actually imminently changing the way OUP is accessed, which will make this issue moot, so instead I'll just ask for your patience - you'll hear more from us soon on how to access OUP. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@2dmaxo: Please see my note below - you should now be able to access OUP resources once again, directly through the Library Card platform rather than through your OUP username/password. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thanks so much! I will check out resource now and revert. 2dmaxo (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

British Newspaper Archive

Hi! You've helped me in the past, so I'm requesting more help now. :). Around 2 years ago, someone helped me to get access to [https:www.azbilliards.com AZBilliards.com] and I'm really appreciative. I was wondering if there was anything already in place, or a way I could contact someone about getting access to the British Newspaper Archive? It's a little steep for me - around £7 a month - for this hobby of mine! Could someone steer me in the right direction how I could contact them, or if there is something already in place for this source? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

We used to have an arrangement with BNA when they were a fairly new outfit but that lapsed. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Unfortunately we don't currently have access to BNA, but we're trying! You can follow our progress at T252646. In the meantime, we do have quite extensive newspaper collections through other partnerships - you might want to take a look at ProQuest, Gale, Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a shame - I could see it being a really highly requested item. No worries. Does anyone have an email, or otherwise that I could give them a poke? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a partnership that we'd want to distribute broadly it's probably best that we keep to one thread for this partnership. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Grove music online

Hi, I have started a discussion at WP:AN about recent changes to the Template:GroveOnline cite tool which removes the note that it added "subscription required" which I remember being instructed was mandatory when citing Grove Online. Can somebody check that discussion which is here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Grove music online and make sure that's OK? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smeat75: Thanks for notifying us of the discussion - I've left a note there :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Linking to the library

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1926%E2%80%9327_Cardiff_City_F.C._season&diff=prev&oldid=974235520 Is this a good thing or a bad thing to "fix" these links? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made the bot temporarily stop doing that while I wait a response. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: That looks good to me, it's the kind of fix I requested here, right? In this case the new link also isn't fantastically useful, still giving users a login screen, but at least it's on Gale's website rather than redirecting people back to a proxy/library card error or Wikipedia login. In other contexts the new link should end up sending folks to an abstract, at least. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Collections Now Available (September 2020)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

• Al Manhal – Arabic journals and ebooks
• Ancestry.com – Genealogical and historical records
• RILM – Music encyclopedias

Many other partnerships are listed on our partners page, including Adam Matthew, EBSCO, Gale and JSTOR.

A significant portion of our collection now no longer requires individual applications to access! Read more in our recent blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Citing Ancestry

When I got access to Newspapers.com a few years ago I was told to put the via=Newspapers.com attribution in the reference, and a free access template tag on top of it. Any rules with Ancestry.com sources? Wondering how we justify to Ancestry how we're using their platform for free for Wikipedia-related queries when Ancestry doesn't have ways to track what you're doing like Newspapers.com has with the "Clippings" feature. Thanks. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Ancestry fails WP:SPS, so why would you be citing it? Are you citing newspaper clippings or census data hosted on Ancestry? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, that kind of catches me off guard. Why would Wikipedia offer access to Ancestry if we can't cite from it then? I imagine for my biographical pages I would be using it for census information, possibly ship manifests and other biographical data. How do I then incorporate that onto Wikipedia? SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ancestry's user-constructed trees, forum posts, etc fall under SPS, but it also hosts newspaper articles and a variety of primary-source records. These can be cited in accordance to the guidance at WP:PSTS.

You can use |via= but it's not required. There's an extensive discussion here if you're interested in more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that was my original intention. Answered my question fully, thanks. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disclose the editors who are enrolled over Wikipedia Library

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few months back, I sought for a L'Harmattan article over en-wiki RX. Now, L'Harmattan is a TWL partner whose subscriptions gets processed from fr.wiki. I (till date) have not come across any need to access any of their resources and thus, did not intend to consume one account for accessing a single resource (it seemed unethical to me) and per a conversation with Nikkimaria, sought for folks over fr.wiki, who have access to it. But, I failed to reach a single user, who had a subscription to Harmattan. One had his user-box, despite expiration of the subscription whilst one did not choose to reply. Another, (who was pinged by the one with expired-access), did not choose to reply either. Per subscription-counts, it was clear that ample people had access to it, but I had no scope of knowing whom to contact other than those, who self-disclosed. RX did not help me either and at last, Sam asked me to proceed towards consuming one account for the sole purpose of accessing about two pages, which is a highly inefficient and non-optimal way of doing things.

I (thus) propose that there be

a public list of all editors who are granted access to any resource from TWL

so that they can help out fellow editors within rational limits. All applicants (including myself) are feeding on a scarce community-resource and I am unable to see any reasons for not being radically transparent, in this regard.

FWIW, I'm not seeking for any retroactive change which might infringe on already signed legal agreements and all that. I'm arguing for the implementation of this proposal for all new requests and renewals.

Thoughts and opinions on the proposal (esp. about reasons (if any) to maintain the current privacy) are welcome:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Transcluded to Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Personally, I have always just asked at WP:RX, how many cases are there that could not be helped by that venue but could be helped by directly contacting the editors with TWL access? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Most of the rare-resource-stuff. L'Harmattan, EPW, Miramar are a few names, I can recall very now. ∯WBG^converse 16:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• I like this idea. I think it helps with the transparency of TWL and allows more member-to-member resource sharing that doesn't have to bottleneck through the very busy TWL folks. Jessamyn (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure about this. Shouldn't it be an opt-in list like WP:RX? On the RX, me and others have listed what resources they have access to, whether or not affliated by the wikipedia library. The only reason why I'm hesitant because what if some editors do not want to be on this list? What if they prefer not to be bombarded with emails asking for help for a resource they have access to? If it's opt-in, sure. Then it'd be a list of who has access to what and who don't mind helping others out :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

    When you are accessing a community-resource, you shall be prepared for receiving such requests of assistance. Whether to process them is obviously at your discretion but as far as I have seen, most of the people are nice and collaborative enough to help out others:-) I also disagree about your assessment of probable bombardment, in light of the volumes of request at RX (which I've been patrolling for long). ∯WBG^converse 18:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

    Well, this is before this idea comes up. I'm just listing a possibility of what could happen. Whether it does or not, we'll see. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm, the issue with that is that it's a retroactive change in the written out expectations. So I'm happy to be on such a list (I hadn't realised there was also the shared resources list, so I've added myself there). Whether it's fair to require that for all, despite being community licenses...I'm not sure. I'd certainly be in favour for such for any future granted accesses. I have a 2nd concern - people are going to always go for those on the top or bottom of any such list, which means certain editors are going to face way more requests. Is there a way to randomly shuffle them around periodically? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Regarding Nosebagbear's second concern, randomizing the list might help; Mr. Stradivarius' Module:Random as employed on this page for example could be used for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I'm not seeking a retroactive change. I'm arguing for the implementation of this for all new requests and renewals. Probably worth clarifying in the main post? ∯WBG^converse 18:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Winged Blades of Godric and Jo-Jo Eumerus: - ah, that looks fine then, and a great potential solution Jo-Jo. I'd certainly support such a change unless someone comes up with another major issue. Probably worth clarifying in the proposal, though i imagine most current holders would be happy enough to sign-up as well. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  :-) Agree that current access-holders can jump onto the list per their individual discretion. ∯WBG^converse 19:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• One additional question, perhaps it sounds a little silly: When one enrolls in TWL, is it OK under their contractual agreements to access sources on someone else's behalf? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  Jo-Jo Eumerus, the relevant portion of the ToS (of WMF-Library-platform) states:-

  Please note that in order to access an individual publisher’s resources, you agree to that publisher’s terms of use and privacy policy. Additionally, your access to publisher resources through the Wikipedia Library is accompanied by the following terms.

  Your access allows you to search, view, retrieve and display partner content (that is, content that requires an account to access) from publishers; to electronically save partner content; and to print out single copies of partner content.

  You must agree not to share your usernames and passwords for access to publisher resources with others.

  Your access to publisher resources does not allow you to mass scrape or mass download restricted content from publishers; to systematically make printed or electronic copies of multiple extracts of restricted content available for any purpose; to data mine metadata without permission, in order to use metadata for auto-created stub articles, for example; or to use the access you receive through the Wikipedia Library for profit by selling access to your account or resources to which you have through it.

  I have checked the ToU of ample publishers (who are in the platform) and none disallows accessing sources on someone's behalf. They mostly regurgitate the above stuff in slightly different forms. ∯WBG^converse 19:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I actually never really looked into WP:TWL before WBG posted on my talk page to inquire about my thoughts. I just applied to get access to JSTORE now. This seems a bit different in nature than WP:RX because it's a paid service to Wikipedians. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to potentially share the economic benefits with users. If it is deemed neccesary, the list can be opt-in, but do remember that these individuals (like potentially me in the future) aren't paying for these benefits rather than the library is on their behalf to create a better encyclopedia. We're a collaborative project, and I think it all the better for TWL to simply reflect that in some way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• I thought this was already publicly made known - https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/activity/ - the applicants and the successful ones appear to be marked on the TWL page - so it should only be a matter of putting that data together but keeping track of expiry and maintaining the list is probably not a fun job. Maybe a software feature request for the Library Card Platform website would work. Shyamal (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  Shyamal, that is an opt-in list and only tracks the last 50 events over the platform, pending which they are (probably) removed.

  Account coordinators regularly email the users whose accounts are nearing expiry to inquire about whether they still need the resource, in which case they are renewed or else, the account locked and allotted to someone else. So, they are already tracking expiry and relevant stuff. ∯WBG^converse 07:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• The plans for a Wikipedia_Library_Bundle would seem to address the inefficiency of consuming an account for a brief specific need, though I don't know which or how many providers are ready to sign up for that? AllyD (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  AllyD, those are plans (that have been already in the pipeline for over 2 years) and per safe estimates, will take another few years to be implemented. Whilst that would eventually address some of the root problems, do you have any objection to the current proposal? ∯WBG^converse 09:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Something I saw earlier this week indicates to me that some degree of broad rather than user account-specific access rights may be introduced soon, but I know no more than that. To the extent that access remains account-specific, the pre-Library Platform request method did involve public on-wiki record (e.g. [2]]) which, though not capturing the final steps of publisher registration and activation, was implicitly available to help another user seeking someone who could obtain a particular resource. I wouldn't think it too onerous a build to extend the Library Platform with a query on publisher to select contact details of one random user (to spread the load); though, trends in privacy legislation may mean this would have to be opt-in, despite it being a community resource which previously had on-wiki request lists. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

  AllyD, I saw the phab-ticket but given how TWL has technically matured over the years, am not optimistic at all. ∯WBG^converse 16:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Cond Support with the retroactive clarification agreed and hopefully some method of randomising to avoid a few poor souls. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• We already do have an opt-in to this sort of listing, Category:Wikipedians by access to a digital library - perhaps it may be enough to encourage further use of this? Perhaps even change it to opt-out (e.g. you get access given, you get put in the categories). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  Will like that but then, opt-out shall be granted on an individual basis and pursuant to exceptional grounds rather than any garden-variety stuff like People might bother me with requests for sources. I am inclined to think of the resources as a rough-equivalent of WMF grants - limited in number and near-always publicly dealt with. ∯WBG^converse 14:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Winged Blades of Godric: we wouldn't normally force someone to be in a category, so that would be for a more "flexible" opt-out (If you are granted this you will be added to the user category by the coordinator) - for a less flexible opt out, then just having a list/table of users maintained by the coordinators would be doable as well. I tend to recommend "softer" options if they will solve the problem though. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux and Winged Blades of Godric: I'd take issue with being in a category as well. I assumed this would be a list page in project space or a special page. If it was the former, we could do simply have an opt-out subpage (like Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous) that is just admin protected. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Who would be providing this list? I know as an account coordinator our confidentiality agreement with the WMF would prohibit disclosure. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 22:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Cameron11598: Obviously, that agreement will be altered (shall there be a consensus) and this discussion seeks to do that. ∯WBG^converse 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• It took about 30 seconds and three clicks from here to find this page. Ok some may not be active any more, but I'm not really seeing the problem. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi all, I work on The Wikipedia Library program at the WMF. I just wanted to clarify the situation from our end, explain why this isn’t a feature we implemented, and provide an update on our plans.

As a first point, displaying a list of users approved for access via the platform is technically feasible to implement on the Library Card platform, in any number of different ways: randomly ordered, opt-in, opt-out, you name it. There are a few reasons we haven’t shared such a list for each publisher in the past, however. The first is that for many publishers we simply don’t have an accurate list of users who actually have access - while we know who we’ve approved for access, account setup has historically been a multi-step process in which users might not finish setting up their accounts. We also haven’t been able to record a clear picture of how long any individual’s account lasts, some require renewing yearly, others are indefinite, others end on a set date, depending on the publisher - it’s not as straightforward as it might seem. This unclear picture of who has access meant that showing a list of users with access was difficult, so it wasn’t work we pursued.

We also prioritised privacy concerns on this tool, in the Terms of Use (approved by WMF Legal) and the NDAs signed by coordinators, and in allowing users to apply via email where necessary to preserve their privacy. Additionally, facilitating the sharing of individual resources is something I wouldn’t feel entirely comfortable with given how concerned many publishers are with sharing this access freely in the first place - importantly, we don't pay for publisher content, it's all provided by donation. The reason we have account caps for most publishers is that they’re understandably hesitant to give access to their resources out for free. Additionally, the specific terms of use for some publishers do place restrictions on sharing of content. Finally, due to their local context, some users may not be comfortable receiving requests for full-text content - see the final bullet under ‘Copyright tips’ at WP:RX.

I appreciate, though, that a limited number of accounts per-publisher introduces issues when we’ve either filled the list or you only want one or two resources. I’m happy to say that the more comprehensive solution to this problem (as alluded to above by WBG and AllyD) is finally right around the corner! While the development on authentication-based access and the Library Bundle was unfortunately delayed for quite some time due to legal discussions, we’re now moving ahead with technical implementation and are currently scheduled to be up and running before the end of the year. Under this system more than half of our content will be immediately accessible to everyone who meets TWL’s activity criteria (500 edits, 6+ months editing, 10+ edits in the past month) without manual approval or a fixed cap on the number of accounts. This, along with a more streamlined proxy-based process for many other publishers, should mean that access is more plentiful and you should rarely feel worried about only needing a small number of resources.

In the meantime, as Xaosflux points out above, we do have userboxes/categories for most publishers which users can place on their user page to add them to the relevant tracking category and opt into marking themselves as being available for queries. There’s also WP:RX if you’re requesting individual resources. I hope that helps, please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Samwalton9 (WMF),

The first issue of multi-layered-approval is problematic, indeed. May-be necessitate that once an editor gets his/her access, he/she needs to confirm that over through email? Unless he/she confirms, we send periodic (monthly/bimonthly?) reminders to the users? Obviously, an user can play around that because we have to take his/her words at face value but that would be peak-ABF-esque.

Now, an account lasts for a specific time, which's unique to a part. resource across all applicants. The coordinators often knows this span, too and send mails, a month or two before our access is to end, inquiring about whether we still need access or our account can be locked and re-allotted to someone else. Do you enter into agreements w/o specifying all these details? How does the process of enrolling a partner plays our internally?

Additionally, the specific terms of use for some publishers do place restrictions on sharing of content. - Evidence, please.

Some users may not be comfortable receiving requests for full-text content - see the final bullet under ‘Copyright tips’ at WP:RX - One can take himself out of the list and, as I said, nobody can compel anyone to provide resources.

We also prioritised privacy concerns is not a reasoning tool - I'm asking for the reasons behind the prioritization, over here. ∯WBG^converse 19:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The Wikipedia Library (TWL) doesn't know whether an editor has access to a resource through TWL. TWL knows when they offer an editor access, but, depending on the partner, may not know if the editor followed through and activated an account with the partner. TWL doesn't know if the editor has retained any special url required to access the partner, or remembers or can recover their password. TWL doesn't know if the access has been terminated. In several cases TWL has contacted me to advise me that my access will lapse if I don't respond, when in fact the partner expired my access years earlier.

TWL access is widely available for the asking. Most subscription expire after a year (Miramar after just a few days), after which I beleive the subcriptions return to the pool. The 15% or so of partners who are routinely waitlisted (AAAS, Cambridge, Science Direct, Sage, ...) are mostly readily available through reasearch university libraries, and thus through Resource Request (RX). If an editor is so public-spirited that they hesitate to consume a plentiful resource by signing up for a subscription, then they should sign up for the account anyway, self-disclose that they have it, and offer at RX to use it on behalf of anyone else who needs it, rather than imposing that condition on all subscribers. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I volunteer at RX, where I can choose what requests to read and respond to. I would not sign up for TWL resources if WP:CREEP caused TWL to place me on a public list of people to contact about that resource. I have no interest in searching databases for someone who doesn't qualify for access through TWL, or is too lazy to apply for access through TWL, or is on a fishing expedition for something that I don't believe would improve the encyclopedia. Using a community resource to improve Wikipedia should continue being sufficient reason to grant access to that resource, without the editor having to be on the receiving end of unwanted requests for help. Transparency should be balanced against an editor's right to privacy. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Basically Worldbruce and Samwalton9 have covered everything I would have said. There might be room to improve the layout (simplification, clarification, etc.) of the TWL application pages especially to increase crosslinks between WP:TWL and WP:RX to advertise WP:RX for those in a situation like Winged Blades of Godric (WBG) where research assistance is required but ethical concerns prevent the researcher from signing up with TWL, but in my experience the coordinators are very good at directing requests for scarce sources to RX where assistance is generally available. The privacy issues raised above are likely to be common with some library-oriented folks (e.g. at TWL) for historical reasons. -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC) (Disclosure: I am a former TWL coordinator. -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC))

  Thibbs, I fucking know where the RX is. Have provided ample content to users, from there and received some. In the described case, nobody at RX managed to access the resource. I contacted Nikkimaria (the coordinator for the resource) who merely pointed me to fr.wiki user-cat and said that she can't help more. Also, the linked case is too hyperbolic to be relevant. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  OK, calm down. I understood your proposal of a public list to be a general proposal intended to help all editors here at Wikipedia including those who don't know where RX is. I understand that you have specific needs for specific sources in the case you described, but as your proposal was phrased as a general request I didn't think you were asking specifically for yourself. In your specific case I would recommend the following: (1) sign up for an account despite the ethical concerns, (2) carry out whatever research you need, and then (3) restore the ethical neutral point by alerting the coordinator that you wish to relinquish control over your account. Is it inefficient, sub-optimal, and generally clunky? Sure. But at least it protects the privacy of the other users who might wish to avoid unpleasant demands from others. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  My core point is that if you are concerned over privacy to such an extent (the proposal allows for optional opt-outs but with a public entry), you have no business to claiming community resources.

  As far as I have seen, once people access RX, they know about TWL and vice-versa.

  I have since got that resource (via guest inst. access and using stuff, completely outside of wikimedia) but that's not much relevant and it intends to serve as an example case. ∯WBG^converse 18:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Worst case scenario: the accounts expire within a certain time period and the account gets cycled back into the community. I understand your perspective, but I don't think it's accurate to characterize the resources as a non-community resource. -Thibbs (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm afraid I have to oppose this resolution. As someone who uses TWL as a resource, I'm not comfortable being put on a presumably-public list for dissemination, simply because I use TWL. Moreover, it's a rather simple process to apply; it just takes some patience for one's submission to be processed. Thibbs, Worldbruce, and Samwalton9 more or less encapsulate my other thoughts on this matter. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not much sure as to why you have the access, either. ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think WBG's initial concern is unreasonable, but find the arguments by Samwalton, etc. persuasive. I also don't actually see that there's a problem that needs fixing at this point. There is no case here where someone wants access to something and can't have it. WBG can have access to the resource in question (at least as far as I understand), but would prefer not to take an account for such a limited purpose. I'd be more sympathetic if we had a situation where someone wanted access, all the accounts were taken, and the people who have opted into using the user category were unresponsive. Especially if someone is themselves active at RX, I see no problem with them requesting whatever accounts they want. I wouldn't be opposed to making the user category opt-out rather than opt-in, though, since I suspect the majority of people who have access wouldn't mind being listed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agreed that it doesn't make much sense to require you to consume an account only to access two pages, but unless TWL indicates having the bandwidth to implement the extra reporting steps, I view this as scope creep or, most charitably, a nice-to-have. Last I recall, TWL was in need of more volunteers, not more to put on their plates. Additionally, it's really exciting to hear about recent progress towards proxy-based access (haste the day!) which would obviate the need for manual transparency. If the dev time is zero sum, that definitely seems like the area with greatest impact. czar 19:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't have an opinion either way: but if you are going to do this, just make sure you have an 'accurate' list of currently enrolled people, for example I no longer have any access from TWL provided resources. — regards, Revi 07:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• The TWL could theoretically grant shorter-term access like a month-long access if scarcity of the resource really became the problem. Most editors applied for the access because they want to write an article which may have relevant material in respective database/library, that does not mean they're suddenly ready to became a librarian. The proxy model used by most libraries could also work, just that I don't think the partners would agree to that. SFPL worked out a license model with NYTimes that grant three day access to their patrons and can reapply after, which could also be of reference to what TWL might work in the future. viz ✦ 01:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• As a WPL account coordinator, I've had two or three users apply for accounts but express discontent over having to release any of their personal details to WPL volunteers. While a list like this wouldn't necessarily expose such details, a list like this would likely discourage such users from signing up. This may or may not be a reason to oppose this proposal, but I wanted to add my evidence that privacy concerns are important to people with WPL access. I personally do not wish to make a !vote. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think anyone should be required to disclosed anything, but it would be good to have voluntary disclosure of those things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with User:Headbomb and others above. Users with access should be encouraged to disclose, but it should not be enforced. --Hecato (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'd be opposed to requiring disclosure. For some users in repressive countries, strictly regulated social groups, etc, just accessing certain information sources may be illegal, dangerous, or embarrassing. On the other hand, providing an easy way for users to find people with access to these databases seems like a good thing and promotes the goals of wikipedia, so I'm all for it, on a voluntary basis. I'd even make it easy to opt-in, like a "please list me in the directory" checkbox when you sign up (but which defaults to not). I've got JSTOR, Newspapers.com, and Rock's Backpages access. The later, of course, being a highly subversive organization. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per several of the previous oppose votes. While the TWL partner accounts are a community resource, my volunteer time is not: whether I choose to make myself available to handle such requests must be, like all other contributions on these projects, entirely up to me. And, frankly, the sheer entitled attitude exhibited in some previous posts make me question whether I would want to subject myself to that hassle.
  That being said, until the mentioned Library Card Platform changes address the root problem, I think we both could and should do much to encourage more editors to volunteer to make themselves available for such requests and to make it easier to contact them with a request. My gripe above aside, I have always been happy to help anyone who asks—using both the TWL partner services I have access to, my personal library, and any physical library or other resource I can access—but I haven't been conscientious about adding the relevant user boxes or watchlisting WP:RX.
  I think we should use either mass-message or targeted email based on TWL account info to send out instructions for and encouragement to add userboxes for all resources an editor can access. The idea mentioned above about using Module:Random and a template to easily get a list of, say, five random editors with access to a given resource willing to handle requests. Maybe we could even get a bot to maintain a frequently updated list of "currently active editors with access to resource X" (ping Xaosflux) so one wouldn't have to waste time placing requests with editors who aren't currently editing, or who are on Wikibreak but haven't removed the userboxes. The Library Card Platform user interface and coordinator acceptance emails could surface instructions for adding the relevant userboxes on acceptance to a given resource, and explain why it is important to do so (the nominator's quandry isn't unique, but it's not something most people will automatically think of unless prompted).
  I also think more explicit guidance on what are permissible uses of partner resources would make more people comfortable volunteering to handle such requests. On the one hand we could clear away the nonsensical concern that partners might be pissed if you access their service on someone else's behalf (they won't be, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they did: this is knowledge not anything copyrightable we're talking about). But on the flip side I imagine a lot of them (but not necessarily all!) would react badly if you send someone a PDF copy of an entire journal article (just because academics at a university do that all the time does not mean we can or should get away with it). And if you can't just send someone the whole article, that means most requests will be some level of research, which is complicated and time-consuming (relative to just grabbing a PDF) and may not be in a field or area that you are familiar with. Clear and explicit guidelines on this will help steer the expectations of both requester and those trying to help, and will make borderline requests less uncomfortable for those receiving them.
  And just to note… I've never had any problem getting help accessing a resource in a TWL partner service. In my experience almost all editors on the project are happy to help in any way they can, and will bend over backwards to do so if it all possible. And that includes outright "Can you research this for me?" type requests! Wikipedia editors on the whole are straight awsome people. --Xover (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes; yes you are. ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Now why would you bring sexual orientation into this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need help

I am thoroughly confused. I joined Ancestry through the Wikimedia Foundation, but could not change the temporary user name to my email address because Ancestry said it was already in use. I have been a member in the past, but it seems they have hung on to my details as a "guest" and I cannot use it again. I do not have any other email address. What do I do to join again without being asked for a subscription? Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: Is there any way you could log in to your old account and delete it, such that your email is freed up again? If not, I'll get in contact with Ancestry and see if there's anything they can do to help here. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thanks for replying. I will try to delete my account (which says I'm a guest), but would Ancestry delete my email address, as they seem to have kept it since 2011 when I had a year's subscription? If it's successful I'll come back here. I did try to contact Ancestry but they didn't respond. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): I have gone through the deletion process which they say will take up to 30 days, so I will have to wait for that period. Will the Ancestry/Library subscription still be available then? Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: That's frustrating - yes, your TWL account will be active for at least a year. I'll contact Ancestry to see if we can get you setup sooner - you're unlikely to be the only editor this situation applies to! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Thanks a million. I'll watch this space. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: Unfortunately nothing they can do. Their only suggestion was updating the email on the old account first, then you'd be able to change the new one to the email address you want. Sorry I can't be more help here! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): I tried that first, and they wouldn't allow me to change the WMF email to my own, as my own was was "already in use". I have now deleted my account, and will try to set up the WMF account in a few days, if absolutely necessary with a new email address. Thanks for looking into it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF):: I have waited a while and tried to sign in using the details emailed to me originally, but get "Sign-in failed". It seems the details are no longer valid. Is there a solution? If not, I'll just have to forget it. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: Just to clarify, you're getting "sign-in failed" for the WikimediaUser account that we emailed you details for? That account should have been working regardless so I can look into this if that's the case. Thanks, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): - that is the case, yes. T. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've sent you a new login :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Sam. All's well, now. Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tweak updates for translation pls

Hello, Does anybody care to tweak the en page for translation update please? Not much change since September 2019, but wish any update be filtered through for i18n purposes. Cheers, --Omotecho (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Using the via= parameter and {{open access}} template

Shouldn't we suggest (or require) that when citing a reflink accessed via the Library Card platform, such as JSTOR, newspapers.com, etc., the citation should include the via= parameter and also use the {{open access}} template? It seems to me this would provide the proper credit and recognition for the providers' generosity. Some editors, such as myself, are already doing so.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@JGHowes: Regarding |via=, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_146#Should_WP:TWL_be_allowed_to_acknowledge_the_services_they_have_partnership_with_in_our_articles?. Regarding {{open access}}, from my understanding that template is meant for resources that are open access, not just available to read. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nikkimaria, for providing that discussion link, resulting in an "it's allowed" conclusion for the via=TWL (as opposed to "suggested" or "preferred", much less "required"). Because the TWL partners have voluntarily agreed to make their subscription-based content freely available for qualified Wikipedia editors, it is only right to provide credit in that manner, methinks.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

My take, unless I've misunderstood, is that these are not "open access" items but they are "open access" for some as a result of TWL. Which is great! But a difefrent thing than saying "Hey this is open access, ergo you-the-reader will be able to access this" (which most will not be able to). So while I think it's a really nice idea, I think realistically it's more likely to cause confusion than to be something that our partners see and appreciate. Jessamyn (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Times articles (pre 1970's)

Hello. I am doing research on a topic that is discussed in older New York Times articles (pre 1970's). I can see some of the preview text and the date, but I cannot see the author's name. It seems that only current subscribers can see the author's name. I understand that many older articles do not have bylines. Are there editors who are NYT subscribers that can look up to see if there is author information? This must be a frequent problem. The Times is such a valuable resource for citation. Thank you! Thriley (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Post details and I will have a look for you. Conlinp (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thriley: We have New York Times archives from 1851-2016 available through ProQuest. Log in to the Library Card platform, head over to My Library, click Access Collection under ProQuest and search for the article title you're looking for and you should find it :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

I am confused about what is going on here. Recently, since yesterday or so, I began getting the message that I'm registered, but that I need "Publisher Extra Subscription" to view anything my search turns up. To me, that seems like my subscription expired. If I go to the The Wikipedia Library Card Platform, it tells me to apply for that membership. Yet ... I have two different listings under "My applications". One says mhy renewal request is pending. "Not yet reviewed" A separate entry for this below this that says, " Has your account expired? Renewals are either not required, not available right now, or you have already requested a renewal." I don't know what's going on, but can we just get this straightened out so I can proceed with my work? — Maile (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Times

I haven't been able to access The Times recently via Gale. I go to Gale Wikipedia Library <https://www-galesupport-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/wikipedia/>, click on "I have read and accept" etc, then "View resources" and nothing happens. I've tried on more than one browser. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, the page wants you to read the terms each time, so it won't proceed unless you actually open them before you try to click "View resources". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you! I was an autopilot. I opened them, then went back and it worked. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

JSTOR institution

If I follow a link to an article that's on JSTOR, then try to log in to view it, I end up at https://www.jstor.org/institutionSearch and get no matches for "wikipedia", "wikimedia" or "wiki". So to access, I need to open another tab, navigate to TWL, and log in to JSTOR from there.

Their page says “Only institutions that have provided a single-sign on or proxy access link are listed.” Is there some URL we can supply to them to simplify the process?

Pelagic ( messages ) – (16:27 Sat 28, AEDT) 05:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: If you preface whatever URL you're trying to access with https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?url= it should work. For example this article is accessible through this URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect username/password

When I click on "access collection" for any collection that I have access to (or should have access to—I'm not sure if there's a difference) I'm taken to a page on oclc.org that tells me I've entered an incorrect username or password, and prompts me to try again to login. I can't find any guidance on how to get past this. Can anyone help? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please try logging out and in to the Library Card platform, and also navigate to https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/logout and then trying again. Let me know if that helps. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that makes no difference. I've tried logging out through the Library Card site, through Wikipedia and through the logout link, and tried Firefox, Chrome and Safari. Same result each time. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Has this ever worked for you? I'm wondering if it has something to do with your username. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): No, I don't believe I've ever tried to use TWL in its current form prior to yesterday. I did have access to Highbeam in 2012–13, but from what I recall it was an entirely different system then. It could be my username as you say, the ampersand does sometimes cause problems. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: Looks like that is the culprit, I just reproduced the issue with a test account containing an ampersand. I've logged this at T268892 and we'll get to it once an engineer wraps up their current task. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Great, thanks for looking into this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts: We've just pushed a fix - can you check if this works for you now? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Samwalton9 (WMF): Yes, it's working now. Thanks again for your help. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Enslaved: Peoples of the Historical Slave Trade

Of potential interest to Wikipedians is Enslaved: Peoples of the Historical Slave Trade, which is "a robust, open-source architecture to discover and explore nearly a half million people records and 5 million data points. From archival fragments and spreadsheet entries, we see the lives of the enslaved in richer detail." A bit more information from their website:

Explore or reconstruct the lives of individuals who were enslaved, owned slaves, or participated in the historical trade.

Read short biographical sketches about people associated with the historical slave trade–both prominent figures and also those lesser known.

Search over numerous datasets and reconstruct the lives of people involved in the historical slave trade. Browse interconnected data, generate visualizations, and explore short biographies of enslaved and freed peoples.

Journal of Slavery and Data Preservation is a digital academic journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed datasets about the lives of enslaved Africans and their descendants drawn from the documents produced from the fifteenth to the early twentieth centuries.

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

2020-12 Times of London

Hello,

Could somebody send me a copy of this article published in the Times of London? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Visite fortuitement prolongée, you'd probably be better off posting this at Wp:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsubscribing from a resource

I've been granted access to the Cochrane library, which I won't need for the foreseeable future. Is there a way to unsubscribe so that the next person on the waitlist can have it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

For that resource, at the moment no. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Access to sources

@Samwalton9 (WMF): with a few websites, I've noticed that I don't have much access via TWL to the sources they offer. For example, I can access very little via Cambridge. There's a button to suggest the sources to the librarian (i.e. TWL), but nothing has ever come of it. Today I tried to access an article via Grove Music Online, but again I can see only the abstract when signed in with TWL.

Can anything be done to increase our access as TWL subscribers? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV, Grove Music seems to be providing full-text access for me - is there a particular article you're not able to access? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's this one: Stephen J. Adams (2001). Pound, Ezra (Loomis). Grove Music Online. Not logged in, I can see down to "In the 1930s local concerts sponsored by Pound in Rapallo formed a model for the 1939". Logged in via TWL, I can see even less. I've tried with two browsers. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's okay. It has been explained to me that I have to click on the name. This is like me not clicking on the terms of use with Gale. I wonder if it's something similar with Cambridge. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Cambridge is a different case - our access expired and we're working with them on a new agreement to get it reinstated. In the meantime we only have access to free content. Sorry that's not clear, we don't really have a good way to flag that to users right now. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam, thank you for explaining. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Just a quick heads up that Cambridge content should now be reactivated :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Emerald

Hi! Is the Emerald partnership still active? I've been waitlisted almost a year :) If not, is there a list of those with access so I can make some requests? czar 21:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: Unfortunately we had some legal roadblocks on getting things renewed with Emerald. I need to review where we got stuck and see if we can get things moving again, but I don't expect that to happen in the short term. We don't display any public list of those with access via TWL. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now (February 2021)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing new free, full-access, accounts to reliable sources as part of our research access program. You can sign up to access research materials on the Library Card platform:

• Taxmann – Taxation and law database
• PNAS – Official journal of the National Academy of Sciences
• EBSCO – New Arabic and Spanish language databases added

We have a wide array of other collections available, and a significant number now no longer require individual applications to access! Read more in our blog post.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects!

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

--12:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

High Beam

Although I should have access, I can't open the High Beam collection. If I click on the big blue "Go to site" button, I am redirected to the Questia page, with an announcement that "This product is now discontinued". If I click on the smaller HighBeam link, I am taken to a page with the announcement "Permission denied Sorry; you aren't allowed to do that." RolandR (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@RolandR: Unfortunately Highbeam was discontinued - users were directed towards Questia instead, where the majority of that content had been migrated. Questia has now also been discontinued and everyone who had access was provided an account with Gale. We should remove the Highbeam & Questia collections from folks' libraries to avoid confusion - sorry about that. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This is now done, those collections should no longer display in My Library :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

List of partners

Hello. Thanks for making programs like this available. May I suggest adding a link to the "Partners" page on the main page and on the "About" page? The partners page is what I was looking for originally, but I didn't find the partners page until I visited this talk page. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Gale

Access to Gale no longer seems to be working. When I click on the Access Collection from My Library, I am taken to a Welcome page, which asks me to accept the Terms of Use. If I accept, and click the big blue View Resources button, absolutely nothing happens. No redirect, no spinning icon - nothing. Can you confirm if this is just me, or if there is a problem with the resource. RolandR (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RolandR, did you click on the Terms of Use link before clicking on the big blue button? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked to accept. RolandR (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@RolandR: The interface doesn't make it at all clear, but for the accept button to work you need to have first clicked to open the Terms of Use themselves, then navigate back and click Accept. Gale are (thankfully) planning to remove this requirement soon :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Renewal of a lapsed subscription

Hello! I've been on inactive leave for a bit and have come back to find my Newspapers.com subscription provided through TWL has expired in the meantime. Is there a way to regain access? SounderBruce 03:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SounderBruce - you can request a renewal by heading over to My Library. Click the 'Individual access' tab and find the entry for Newspapers.com. You should see a 'Renew' or 'Extend' button which will file that request :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

jstor

Hi, I have been very fortunate to have a jstor subscription through the Library: it has been of the greatest assistance in writing and updating articles. Recently, however, I have been unable to view articles on jstor although I could search for them and download them. Now the whole thing has ground to a halt, now not even the search works and I can't log in or out. Is it me, WP, or jstor? Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No problems here. Check with your library - maybe they have to renew their subscription, or IPs changed or ...it could be any number of things that is a challenge for the library to keep track of without user feedback. - kosboot (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

MinorProphet, what happens if you go here and click 'Access collection'? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I am still apparently logged in because it says "Access provided by Wikipedia", but my username is missing and it also says 'Log in' at top right. If I make a search, it returns nothing, except the search box again: most of the screen is filled by a black panel headed "Explore jstor". In the past when I logged in, the browser normally filled in my details automatically: but now the usual boxes with my username & password are completely missing, no check box to 'Keep me logged in' and there is nowhere to type anything. I am using ancient Firefox v47 on Windows XP, and this may be part of the problem. Thanks for your assistance. >MinorProphet (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah just chiming in to say that I was using my JSTOR access just today and it was working out okay. A few things to try

• if you can possibly try another browser, do that (and clear all the JSTOR cookies from whatever browser you are using), obviously that may not be possible but it's a good troubleshooting first step (after turning things off and on again)
• make sure you're not using add-ons that might be interfering with password situations or identity. Sometimes things like Privacy Badger or uBlock can cause similar issues. If you can try Firefox's safe mode that can rule some things out.
• does really sound like it could be a cookies issue so try these things and report back. Jessamyn (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions - sadly nothing worked, and I get the same symptoms whatever I try. I've sent an email to support@jstor.org, maybe they can help. Perhaps they have dropped support for older browsers. Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

EBSCO - access not working?

I'm trying to use the "Instant access" link to EBSCO's collection, but after I click it, I am running into this error on the following page: "We are unable to validate your login credentials. Please contact your institution for assistance. Please note, Referring URL authentication may have been prevented by antivirus or privacy control software. [Authentication Error Code 103]". Anyone know why this may be occurring? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Y2Kcrazyjoker4: Just a quick acknowledgement that this was our fault, we changed some configuration settings for EBSCO and unintentionally caused this. I'll fix it shortly. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Y2kcrazyjoker4: This should be fixed :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

More exposure needed

I just became aware of this service, after paying for research articles that would have been free with your "library card". And JSTOR would ask that I enter my Library information, and I had none. May I suggest you find ways for new Wikipedias to find this page. The help pages are great, but there is so much information and Wikipedia Library does not jump off the page. Frankly, I have never seen it, and only found out when I asked a question. John NH (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jnhmunro: We're working on it! Design improvements are in development, and before summer we'll be deploying a notification (T132084) so that all eligible users are made aware when they cross the edit count threshold (and retroactively for folks who already qualify). We'd love to hear your experience of using the library for the first time, over at the design improvements talk page :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Would one of the coordinators be kind enough to process my renewal application for newspapers.com? I only realized it had run out when I needed it. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 23:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Approved by TWL on 29 March. Awaiting processing. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC); edited 05:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Access restored 3 April. Many thanks, Netoholic. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

How to get access using my Wikipedia account to a document found in a collection web page without searching again.

For example, I want to get this document in a regular JSTOR page. If possible I wish to avoid going to this Wikipedia page and search again for the document. I tried to use the link that says "Log in through your library", but it says

Although Wikipedia participates in JSTOR, they have not provided us with a way for you to log in remotely. Check your library’s website for access info or contact your librarian who manages JSTOR for your institution.

Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers II: This is possible, it just isn't very intuitive :) You can put https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url= before any URL to access it through the library. In this case, this should get you where you want to go. Sam Walton (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It works ! Anyone made a script to automate this? I imagine that this script will be activated by a bookmark and by clicking on it you get to the page with the code before the URL of the current page. I checked and it seems technically possible with a bookmarklet. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I created it. It is very easy. Tested in Firefox, but should work in any browser. Create a bookmark in your browser. In Firefox, you can right click on the bookmark toolbar and select "New Bookmark". Enter the name you want for the bookmark in the name field, for example, "WikipediaLibrary". In the location field, simply enters this code javascript:window.location.href='https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url='+location.href. That's it. When you are in a JSTOR page (or in another page to which you have library access), simply click on the bookmark. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by this, doesn't your Wikipedia Library login to JSTOR just allow you to access this document directly, or do you have a different sort of access to JSTOR? I believe mine is through the Wikipedia Library and I just stay logged in and can access articles directly. Jessamyn (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: The above relates to JSTOR access via the library proxy, not the old individual logins. I don't know if those are still active - I take it they are in your case - but the only way new library users can access JSTOR is via the proxy. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I just tried my bookmarklet with De Gruyter and it worked. So, perhaps it works for all collections and you just referred to the fact that my question was originally about JSTOR. Does it work for all collections? Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It works for collections that use proxy, which is a majority but not all. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Project MUSE account

Smmurphy got me set up with ProjectMuse in Nov 2020. The account expires Jan 2022. And he gave me a new password. Murphy has not edited since Feb 2021, and only sparsely before then. I don't remember when I accessed it last, but I logged in today. MUSE lets me in to search through its catalog. And it lets me select the individual books, and tells me I'm logged in. However, if I click on any of the chapters, it tells me I'm not authenticated, and it does not recognize my password. All search results are working like that. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Occasionally I find issues like this with Project MUSE which resolve after a short time. I do not know their cause. As far as I know, there are not currently any problems with your account and it should be working now. Can you confirm that you are still having a problem? Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything is working correctly now. Thanks for replying. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Great! Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Access details for Newspapers.com

Hello, I have applied for access to Newspapers.com some time ago and my application was accepted, in the email that I got it said that I can expect to receive access details within a week or two. This was 15 days ago and I still haven't gotten the access details, newspapers.com is located in the individual access part of my library but when I go to the website I can't access it. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@OakMapping: - Sorry for this, but we are currently having some delays from the partner's side getting approvals for accounts. Your application will be updated with a message as soon as we hear back. Until then, you can make use of WP:REREQ to ask for specific articles to be clipped so you can view them. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for replying and pointing me to WP:REREQ, I'll keep waiting then. Best regards, OakMapping (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Newspapers.com always this long?

I applied for access seven days ago and just got approved and it's been sent to partner. However, I haven't gotten the "expect to receive access details in a week or two" email yet. Judging by half this talk page being inquiries about Newspapers.com, and a conversation I had with another editor over waiting for approval, are they just busy or are they always like that? Applying for Newspaperarchive.com last month took like a day or two. ToQ100gou (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ToQ100gou: - Sorry for this, but we are currently having some delays from the partner's side getting approvals for accounts. Your application will be updated with a message as soon as we hear back. Until then, you can make use of WP:REREQ to ask for specific articles to be clipped so you can view them. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

^[3] - Never mind, the upgrade just came through. Thank you a lot ToQ100gou (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Archivists/Cultural professionals

What happened to the overview for Archivists/cultural professionals? The current links in the list of pages and navigation box at the bottom of the page soft redirects to a page about Wikimedians in residence which isn't at all relevant to the [that used to be on the page]. Did that content get sunset or is the redirect an error? Thanks! --Dnllnd (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

I'm supposed to have access to this resource (thanks to all concerned!). It shows up as "individual access" on my Library Card page; I follow the "Go to site" link and sign in. I can search, but whatever search result I try to access I just get a pop-up advertisement that reads "You need a Publisher Extra Subscription to view this page – Start a 7-Day Free Trial". Is that all that I'm supposed to be able to do? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there -- I don't work on this resource specifically but I do use my Newspapers.com Wikipedia account and, no, this isn't all you should be able to do. You may need to do a hard refresh of the page to make sure your browser hasn't cached your unlogged in status. So as an example if I go to newspapers.com as a logged in user I see my icon in the upper corner and it says SUBSCRIBER under my icon. If I go to my account details page, I see my plan as Complimentary Publisher Extra — Annual and it shows when the plan ends. So that should be the kind of subscription you have as well. I will note that sometimes it takes a day or two for a subscription that you get through the library here to actually be active, so you might want to give it 24 hours and still see if you're seeing the same thing. Jessamyn (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: - Sorry for this, but we are currently having some delays from the partner's side getting approvals for accounts. Your application will be updated with a message as soon as we hear back. Until then, you can make use of WP:REREQ to ask for specific articles to be clipped so you can view them. -- Netoholic @ 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

How could I please get a copy of [4] and [5] for Linux Users of Victoria, as per this discussion? Gryllida (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Gryllida, try posting to WP:RX. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Cabells

This database is not working for me. @Samwalton9 (WMF) and Samwalton9: It takes an infinite time to load and gets stuck at a blank page. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Strange - I can't reproduce this. What URL are you on when it's stuck loading? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library collections and design update (August 2021)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says log in today!

The Wikipedia Library is pleased to announce the addition of new collections, alongside a new interface design. New collections include:

• Cabells – Scholarly and predatory journal database
• Taaghche - Persian language e-books
• Merkur, Musik & Ästhetik, and Psychologie, Psychotherapie, Psychoanalyse - German language magazines and journals published by Klett-Cotta
• Art Archiv, Capital, Geo, Geo Epoche, and Stern - German language newspapers and magazines published by Gruner + Jahr

Additionally, De Gruyter and Nomos have been centralised from their previous on-wiki signup location on the German Wikipedia. Many other collections are freely available by simply logging in to The Wikipedia Library with your Wikimedia login!

We are also excited to announce that the first version of a new design for My Library was deployed this week. We will be iterating on this design with more features over the coming weeks. Read more on the project page on Meta.

Lastly, an Echo notification will begin rolling out soon to notify eligible editors about the library (T132084). If you can translate the notification please do so at TranslateWiki!

--The Wikipedia Library Team 13:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

UK Newspapers: 1 Million become free-to-view (registration required)

The British Library have today announced:

Today's the day - one million 19thC newspaper pages free to view (and download) on the British Newspaper Archive. And this is just the start. https://blogs.bl.uk/thenewsroom/2021/08/free-to-view-online-newspapers.html

and:

...Essentially, you need to register to access the free content, but won't be charged anything

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

References

I've just registered, but as far as I can see you can only view four pages free, after which you have to pay. RolandR (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The BL have addressed this on Twitter. The old log-in page needs to be updated, but the advanced search page allows "Access Type = Free To View" to be selected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I've done all this, and they are telling me that I have only one search left. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for announcing this. I still have access to an old account (via Wikipedia Library from years and years ago). I logged again and it flags me as "0 pages remaining". I now can indeed access the "free to view" newspapers pre-1880. BTW I can use the simple search and check the "free to view" box way down on the left selection bar. Thincat (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There's some interesting discussion of this at c:Commons:Village pump#UK Newspapers: 1 Million become free-to-view (registration required). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)