Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/JSTOR/Archive1

JSTOR v HighBeam

A question: to what extent would having access to JSTOR make HighBeam access unnecessary, and vice versa? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Different databases generally specialize in different areas. JSTOR is particularly good with back-issues of many academic journals. At a quick glance HighBeam seems to have a lot of academic journals, but primarily just the last few years. JSTOR often goes back a few decades. JSTOR doesn't have the newspaper coverage that HighBeam has. Unfortunately, no database has everything. GabrielF (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Free JSTOR content

Since most of the requests for JSTOR access say they now have "no access", I'm not sure everyone is aware that some of their material is available free to the general public through Early Journal Content and the new Register & Read Beta. http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/register-read-expanding-access-jstor Of course it would be great if a deal could be worked out for more! Cataobh (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in many fields research has advanced so much that the early journals content is of limited use. Certainly anything published prior to 1923 is of extremely limited use in terms of Mesoamerican research -generally only good for a historical overview of ideas in the 19th to early 20th century. Most theories dating from that time are long dead. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone needs access to paywalled JSTOR (or other companies such as Elsevier) journal articles, please contact me as I have access through my university's large e-journal collection. Maybe we should have simple request board to facilitate between those who have access to resource (like me) and those who wish to access them for educational purposes (including Wikipedia). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a resource request/exchange board at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. First Light (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of other possibilities for individual free or cheap access. A few public libraries have it. But also an increasing number of academic libraries are adding alumni to their license, so probably a benefit of alumni association membership. List on the JSTOR site http://about.jstor.org/individuals Cataobh (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the library is also a possibility, especially in the US and Canada. In addition to the public domain content, it does look like the Register & Read program allows for access to more recent material from about 75 journals. Since JSTOR got back to us with the answer that they don't have room for an institutional account of any kind for us (meaning we'd be like a library or university), we're going to have to explore other options. In the meantime, I think the R&R thing is worth giving a spin. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven, could you say a bit more about the Foundation's negotiations with JSTOR, i.e. when did they say no, is it definitive, and what was their reasoning? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The basic gist is that we have looked at two options: the first was simply contacting JSTOR through their normal sales channels about whether we could acquire any kind of institutional account for a certain number of editors (this would ideally be funded through a grant to us). Their answer to that was that the R&R program was the best they could offer, because they do not provide institutional accounts at this time for "unaffiliated scholars". Basically, we are too unorthodox to fit into their model for a run-of-the-mill institutional account. The alternate option is going directly to a grant-giving organization to fund individual accounts for editors, which would be given out via the process we've started to work up here. That's still a possibility, but nothing has been finalized yet. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Did they say why the Foundation can't have an account the way any public library would? The cost of such a subscription would presumably be based on how many members that library had. While we don't have members, we do have categories of editors (e.g. editors who have written at least one FA, which would be however many are listed here, plus equivalents from other-language Wikipedias).

Limiting access in that way would massively reduce the numbers, in case JSTOR's fear is that a Wikimedia subscription would be like giving access to the whole world. Extending access to anyone who has written one GA would not increase the numbers much, not compared to most public libraries. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, their reason was simply that they don't give such institutional accounts to "membership organizations" because of licensing restrictions. In other words, it may not be in their control actually, and is dependent on negotiation with journals. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting. I wonder how they handle public libraries, because they would seem to be membership organizations. So what's the next step, do you think (if there is one), in trying to get this for Wikipedians? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like according to JSTOR, we have two options:

1. People sign up for the Register & Read program and see how it goes, reporting back in short order about whether it actually does provide any free materials beyond what's in the public domain. From the video they have introducing it, it looks like they give you free read-only access to quite a bit, they just prevent you from downloading a PDF unless you pay.
2. We try and figure out a budget for grants to purchase access to individual journals or papers. Asaf is our guy on that front.

It's unfortunate JSTOR is so antiquated in its access and licensing policies, but as Josh and others have pointed out, the likelihood your library can give you free access to JSTOR and a lot more is high. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Steven. Would you have any objection if I were to follow up with JSTOR? The reason I ask is that, just before you and Raul posted your initiative, I had been planning to write to them to ask if they would give us a price to allow access for all Wikipedians with at least one FA (and non-English equivalent).

My thinking was that they might categorize us as a public library [1] or non-profit research institute. [2] If they said yes in theory, and gave us a price (I would have had to come up with the number of eligible accounts, which would have been the tricky part), I was going to put together a small group of Wikipedians to approach the Foundation for a grant to finance this. There was mention of such an approach on one of the mailing lists about a year ago, and so it seemed worth pursuing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Steven, but I think it's a very good idea. If you do go ahead with it, would you please CC me on the email? Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Both are good ideas. If JSTOR can here from more voices besides Foundation staff, they might understand the situation better. I would suggest keep Raul in the loop too though. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I definitely will. It would be good to know something about the proposals so far, so that I don't go over old ground, or step on toes. But if you and Steven can point me in the right direction (who to speak to, or who not to speak to), that would be helpful. My feeling is that it's worth trying, even if it comes to nothing, because JSTOR access for people wanting to produce FAs would be such a huge benefit -- both for quality of articles and editor morale. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Australia

The bulk of the Australian population is covered by the following institutions which have access to JSTOR:

• State Library of New South Wales
• State Library of Queensland
• State Library of South Australia
• State Library of Victoria - after joining the library for free online a library card is mailed to your Victorian address, and you then have access to JSTOR online from anywhere, 24/7 for a couple of years. Can be done in person for quicker access.

On the assumption that the other libraries work like the Victorian one, most Australians ought to be fine, no need for help from the WMF. Josh Parris 04:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice delivery by User:MessageDeliveryBot

I recommend the use of User:MessageDeliveryBot for delivery of a notice about Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access to the talk page of each WikiProject listed at Category:Active WikiProjects.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Status update

I wanted to give everyone a status update. We're in talks with Jstor and they seem to be going well. Steven is taking point on that.

Hopefully we'll have something substantive to announce soon. Raul654 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up: I'm talking with my contact at JSTOR tomorrow and will have an update soon. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, sorry for the wait. I just wanted to say that I have an agreement for 100 accounts sitting in front of me, which needs to be reviewed by legal here at the WMF. I am hoping we can get this set up before Wikimania. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's brilliant news, Steven. Thanks for all the work you've put into it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic news :) Raul654 (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Very good news - well done! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR for Oxford alumni

One year free trial apparently. Pass it on. Johnbod (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to expand on this, alumni access is available to 34 institutions (and potentially more coming) - full list. I hadn't realised there were so many! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that list, Caltech isn't there yet but seems the sort of place that might be a future addition. I'll also poke at the Caltech alumni association to see if they're interested in following up. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Site licence

How on earth is a "site licence" supposed to work here? Rd232 ^talk 00:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It will probably end up looking a lot like the HighBeam accounts did, with large numbers of users being issued credentials for limited time accounts. Raul654 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Raul is correct. We're still working out the details, but the basic gist is that there will likely be a select number of accounts that get complete free access, just like if you were using your library or university account. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Helping other wikipedians for jstor papers

I often used to rely on an user who had jstor access, but then he became inactive. Luckily, I bumped into another user, who had access recently and was gracious to get the papers for me. IMO, after giving JSTOR access, we should some page where wikipedians who do not have request for specific papers (the requester can search jstor via google/jstor search and find specific ones) and members who have access can mail the paper to them. Whose who get free access through this process, should pledge to fulfil requests from others, if they get requests. Thoughts??? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what we already have at the Resource Exchange? Simon Burchell (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I got JSTOR independently months ago. Just email me if you need something. Try to include a link to the article's JSTOR page or at least the JSTOR number. I need an email because we can't send attachments through the Wikipedia mail system. Do not feel that you are imposing or asking a favor, content contributors need resources and we all have to pitch in where needed. Pity about WMF dropping the ball for so long on this. TCO got the Foundation most of what they needed months ago. Those are months we're not getting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Status?

So, what's the status with this project? I've got many things on my "to do" list which will have to wait until this is sorted. Is it forthcoming, or should I try to find another way of accessing the articles I need? MeegsC (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Meegs. Sorry this is taking so long. We are going back and forth over the contract still. The reason there are so many particulars to iron out is that, even with free access, we have to negotiate issues of user privacy and data, which is something that the WMF takes very seriously. If you need access urgently, I would check out the resource exchange, but otherwise I expect to have this worked out this week and accounts ready the following week. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you're putting into it, Steven. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There is no such thing as an easy ride when negotiating contractual matters. - Sitush (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious to learn it. I have also some works ahead where JSTOR will be highly helpful. Any update? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering if there is any update on the project. It has been a while since the last one (unless I am mistaken!) and it would be great if I could stop bothering our resource request colleagues...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no update since July. Is this thing dead in the water? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Almost. There was some back-and-forth about the contract, but we've finally got a version both legal teams agreed to. I am just working to get a signature on both ends, and we can start having JSTOR hand out accounts. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Great news—thanks for all the work (I imagine a fair amount) behind the scenes. First Light (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Good work indeed. Since the list has been open several months, how will you determine which editors are still active? I don't so much mean completely left Wikipedia, but some people sorta wander away gradually. It would seem a waste to hand out JSTOR access to those who aren't really shoveling in content at present. I say this, of course, out of utter self-interest, since I'm at a miserable 173 on the list, and I would let you cut off the pinky finger of my left hand to get back into JSTOR. Will editors have a certain amount of time to respond to the invitation to accept access? And if they decline, it gets passed on? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What JSTOR is going to do, based on my suggestion, is contact the first 100 people. If people don't respond in a reasonable amount of time, then we'll move down the list. If there is anyone truly not very active, my guess is that they won't have time to reply. We didn't set an edit count requirement up front when people first added themselves to the list, so it's not particularly fair to set one now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for the update and for all the hard work. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent news! --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick update: I am going to start talk page messaging folks tonight (PST) after work. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that Pakistan, Philippine or Pacific Standard Time, Steven? ;) Nah, seriously, it's good to be kept informed and your efforts are appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The following comment has been written in a humorous tone, please don't take it seriously

Or, emm, is it Pluto Standard Time? It is going to be very complex then! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. Pluto Standard Time. ;) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would someone please ping me if and when JSTOR is giving out more accounts? I had completely missed this and being the one who usually notifies the Italian community, I guess they missed it too. Thanks, --Elitre (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think one needs to add themselves to the waiting list.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this to me, but I am afraid I can't find such a list? --Elitre (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just add yourself to the Signup .Please refer to point 3 in how to get access You will need to sign up here, with access given out in the order of signups. Please sign up even if the 100-person limit has been reached, so that overall interest can be measured and we can get a waitlist started. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The elephant in the room

So, when working out this deal, was the name "Aaron Swartz" mentioned at any point? - David Gerard (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Steve Walling and WMF legal had all the direct contact with JSTOR, so I'll defer to them. But personally, I doubt it. Raul654 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And that's gotta be a "so why not?" - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I must be missing something here. There are many tens of thousands of people who have access to JSTOR. Any one of them could have emulated Swartz, given the know-how. Why should Wikipedians be any different? As I understand it, JSTOR are not pursuing Swartz anyway - it is a FBI thing to do with wire fraud & I'm not sure how much control JSTOR have over what the FBI do. Instead of being an elephant in a room, this seems like a mountain and a molehill to me. But, like I said, I must be missing something. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Claiming that JSTOR has nothing to do with the case is utterly disingenuous. There is actual substantive reason not to assume good faith of JSTOR, and Wikimedia giving the organisation a free PR boost is questionable - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making that claim - please read what I said, viz: "I am not sure ..." etc. As for your free PR argument, well, since we already mention JSTOR all over the place in Refs sections and are arguably by-passing their systems through facilities such as WP:RX, "ho hum" would seem to be a reasonable response. - Sitush (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To duplicate my answer from the communications mailing list: in short, no. We didn't talk about that because it wasn't relevant to the matter at hand. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Processing email invitations

Hi Steven, first of all thanks for all the steps taken already and the opportunity to use a free JSTOR account! I was just wondering about the next steps after sending the email to you (the first 100 on the list):

• Can you send confirmation of receiving it? It would be a pitty if at this point something fails...
• When will JSTOR receive the list for processing? After November 30th or as you receive our emails?
• When will they process this list?

Again thanks for all the effort done already, SchreyP ^(messages) 09:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I can confirm receiving it. :) As for the other two questions...

• I will give JSTOR a list when I have 100 complete names. If the remaining stragglers don't reply by end of day on the 30th, then I will invite the next candidates on the list. This is to avoid sending JSTOR a piecemeal list. (We've got about 75 names now.)
• They will start processing shortly after receiving. The invites are simply tokens sent through an email invitation, so I don't expect it will take long.

Hope that helps, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Very clear now! Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 20:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you received my response (sent 20 November)? Not heard anything yet... RolandR (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If I have read things correctly, the 30 November deadline was for the first batch - the first 100 names on the list. It is almost inevitable that a few within that number have not responded and thus confirmatory requests will need to be sent out to a few more people in order to make up the 100. When there are 100 confirmed contributors, their details will be passed to JSTOR. I must admit to being slightly concerned that there has been no attempt to confirm receipts of the confirmation emails: we all know that even with the best will in the world, emails go missing etc. Nonetheless, I think that your underlying point, that it is now beyond 30 November, might be a misunderstanding. Furthermore, 30 November was a Friday & so if we assume that offers remained open until, say, midnight UTC, then nothing would likely to move at JSTOR until Monday anyway, - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Okay, I've now received all 100 contacts, and have handed over the list to JSTOR. I'll confirm here when I hear from them. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR let me know that they want to have the invitations and instructions sent out by tomorrow (December 11th, East Coast time). Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Was thinking to ask this. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good news indeed. Thanks for keeping us posted. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! --Elonka 21:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Email invitation received, account setup, and it's working great. Thank you thank you thank you! :) --Elonka 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I second Elonka - my poor husband has resigned himself to never seeing me again ... thank you so much! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Third! MyJSTOR is working fine. Thanks to all who were involved! Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is really going to make an enormous difference - I'm already flooded with new sources. Many thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Also working for me! Thank you! SchreyP ^(messages) 23:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Working mine too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! First Light (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too! --j⚛e decker^talk 01:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to edit this page in order to do nothing more than be all AOL, but I got my invite and registered my account. AWESOME! Thank you thank you thank you! :D — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm... I haven't received an invitation yet. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I missed it. It is now working for me, too. Thanks for the great work! --AFBorchert (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR not working! Slooooow search!

I just can't work. The search is so slooow. Anyone else facing this? Got to main page type something and search! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup - just times out. Ben MacDui 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've had slow responses and time-outs too, but only intermittently. With no evidence other than a gut-feeling I put it down to 100 enthusiastic editors trying to explore the resource through a gateway that's likely to be throttled. If that's the cause, I expect it will settle down in a few days. I hope the fact that us three are all (I think) outside the US is not a factor.  —SMALLJIM  22:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

They may just be having performance issues in general. If it continues, I'll forward this thread to them. And @Smalljim: access should not be specially throttled for Wikipedians. Our agreement is for unfettered access. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same issue. When I search logged out, it's fast enough, but the same search while logged in times out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just tried a search through my school-based account - seems to be performing as normal. The Interior (Talk) 23:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Steven. I'll post updates, but I guess it should be less stressed over Xmas anyway: academics do take holidays, don't they? ;)  —SMALLJIM  23:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I got response from JSTOR, and they said...

1. There's definitely no throttle.
2. "There were some widespread search performance issues until Wednesday of last week when we rolled out a code release. People should have seen significant improvements in search times after Wednesday."

If anyone keeps having problems, please do email supportjstor.org with a description of your situation. This will be helpful to them in resolving the issue. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, JSTOR search is not working (too slow)! Steven, like SlimVirgin's, JSTOR search is also working fine for me when logged out. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was working, I said what their response was. Please email the address I just provided, considering all I can do is pass on the problem. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 03:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have sent an email. --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• After talking in several emails in last one month, today I have got an email which contains some information:

Thank you again for your patience. I am writing to provide an update on the search slowness issue you reported. Our technical staff has identified the issue and are working to scope a fix. One of my colleagues has been in touch with Steven Walling at Wikimedia Foundation to inform him of the same. We hope to have this issue resolved as soon as possible.

I hope they will fix it soon! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Free JSTOR access for university alumni

This page lists the 50+ institutions whose alumni can arrange free JSTOR access via their institution/alumni association - Mostly US & UK but includes Melbourne, Amsterdam etc. More UK unis than I expected: London, Manchester, Edinburgh, Exeter, Durham, Liverpool, Aberdeen ... Equally Yale but not Harvard, Princeton, U California. Oxford (no Cambridge - stifles snigger) did call this a "one-year trial" but have now told me it is "extended indefinitely". It's a newish thing & one hopes it will grow. Given the waiting list on the WP page here people should check they are not eligible for this. It seems to be very popular & may be worth lobbying your institution to join - they're good enough at asking you for things. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Current status?

I just signed up and am curious to know how far down the list access has been granted -- just to the first 100? Any idea how long it is going to take for a new signup to get access? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for now just the first 100. (See the blog post announcement.) When the first year pilot is over, the plan is to assess what kind of impact the pilot had, and talk about expanding it from there. In the meantime, there are other avenues to get free access via the Register & Read program. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The way those 100 slots were handled was jacked up.PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's exactly constructive criticism. They were handed out on a first-come-first-served basis. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Did first-come first-serve get them to the people who most needed this limited resource?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No way. PumpkinSky talk 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Steven, that blog says "provide 100 of the most active Wikipedia editors". That does not equal first come first serve. PumpkinSky talk 22:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I just have a question. You list Raul654 as the lead community contact for this project but he has been inactive since February 2013. Does the fact that you haven't replaced him with an active editor reflect the state of this project?

You ask editors to be active in order to apply but shouldn't the organizers be active, too? NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the late reply.

Raul's role, I should note, is totally informal and is something I put there just to acknowledge the fact that this project started because he poked the WMF about it, and I responded despite the fact that it's technically outside my job description. If folks feel limited by having his name on the page, I can just remove it. But he's definitely not a gatekeeper, and I have talked to other editors about it. In particular, I'd prefer if this was handled as a part of the larger Wikipedia Library project by Ocaasi, and I'm basically just trying to keep in touch with JSTOR periodically to see what the next step is when the pilot is over. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Steven, can you say what's likely to happen in November. Are the first 100 definitely going to lose access? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I need to talk to my JSTOR contact about it. One thing I know for sure is that the year's access is from the date you registered the account -- each invite was personalized -- so there isn't one end date for all access. As for whether access will expire automatically or if it needs to be done by hand, I need to check with JSTOR. I'll email them today for an update and we'll probably get on the phone to talk about what will happen at the end of the pilot. I know they will likely want to analyze use of archive, but I don't see why access for current account holders should be suspended while we try to make a decision about whether to expand or not. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I expect an answer to my email and Raul's name removed post haste. PumpkinSky talk 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. The access has been so useful for researching articles that several of us are panicking at the thought of losing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I want to second that. Besides having the infrastructure of the servers, the JSTOR access was so far the single most motivating support by the WMF for my work on articles. In my opinion it would be great if the JSTOR logins could be extended in time and opened for all others who signed up. This is something that truly helps in the creation of quality content. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's great, IF you're one of the precious few who got access. PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"acknowledge the fact that this project started because he poked the WMF about it" Ri-ight. Should I start posting the emails among myself, TCO, and Phillippe from 2011 as evidence?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I, just once, want to see WMF do something for Joe and Jane User, that has some meat to it, is handled equitably, and is devoid of cronyism. If Raul is/was involved, that won't/didn't happen. WMF's main focus is on raising money to keep themselves employed, yet without Joe and Jane User, they wouldn't have a job. They rarely think about that. I sent two emails to a WMF staffer making polite and legit enquiries about 10 days ago and never got an answer. PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have expressed my concerns about the future of JSTOR access before. Briefly, if the number of accounts is still to be limited to 100, who should those 100 editors be, after 12 months? Should they be the present account holders? That would be unfair to the many deserving editors who missed out from last years's allocation. Should there be a completely new slate of 100? That would be equally unfair to editors who have made full and productive use of the facility in their WP articles over the last few months. There seems to be a choice between two possible solutions: (1) negotiate with JSTOR for an increase in the number of free accounts, or (2) require existing holders to justify the continuance of their accounts by providing specific evidence (in terms of articles created or improved) that they have used the facility productively. As SlimVirgin implies above, the impending loss of access is deeply worrying to editors whose in-depth research depends heavily on it. Maybe some combination of the two solutions is possible, but we definitely need to establish a more discriminating policy than exists at present. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Brian, I'd like to see a way to distribute these accounts that is not simply first come, first served. I don't see a good way to do it; there would have to be some judgement calls. Perhaps something like this: to continue with an account, you have to request continuation (so we don't automatically re-up users) and also identify articles which you have edited which the JSTOR account helped with. I doubt many people would claim to have worked on articles that they actually hadn't worked on; simply asking for this would probably eliminate most non-users. If a stiffer filter is needed, perhaps requiring users to show that they'd worked on an article that reached either GA or FA? I'm less keen on that, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Even simpler...WMF gets a site license OR anyone with over 3000 edits gets it just for asking and it's renewed if they have 1000 edits a year. Jimbo can afford it. PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: we distributed on a first-come-first-served basis (with a very low minimum activity requirement too) this time around because the folks commenting at the time said they thought that was fair. If there's any kind of new consensus that we want to distribute them differently next time around, that's totally fine with me. The WMF doesn't have a preference for how access gets distributed, as long as it's in a way that most folks are comfortable with (though you clearly can't please everybody...). @PumpkinSky: when I first approached JSTOR, I asked them to donate an unlimited license, and their response was no. JSTOR does not actually have a model where a "site license" for a particular website's users is granted. They negotiate contracts where all students/alumni at a university or library card holders at public libraries can get access, but since Wikipedians have no formal affiliation or relationship with WMF whatsoever, they couldn't support us regardless of the issue of cost. Many others in the broader Wikimedia world (including chapters like Wikimedia Germany, etc.) have tried and failed to get blanket access for Wikipedians granted. The pilot here was unfortunately limited to 100 people, but starting small, getting our foot in the door, and then trying to grow it from there seemed a better thing to do than simply get no one access. Furthermore: I just want to reiterate that I did this as a side project out of my own volition. It has nothing to do with my actual job description at WMF, and in reality the only other project like it (The Wikipedia Library by Ocaasi) is run by someone volunteering as well. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been a brilliant resource for me but if someone wants me to quantify that then we're going to have a problem. I must refer to it at least 10-15 times a week and often much more frequently but that does not always reflect in the editing because (a) research does not necessarily end up in an article and (b) the nature of the subject area in which I operate causes a lot of problems with source misrepresentation & thus a fair amount of what I do is validation rather than construction. Given that I'm making 30k-40k edits a year, trawling for evidence of my usage will be a nightmare and I'm not prepared to do it.

On the positive side, it looks like University of Cambridge alumni now have free access, although I'm still trying to determine whether that access is really to an equivalent content set: the access wording is ambiguous and the mode of access is clunky but if it turns out to be adequate for my needs then obviously I shall be relinquishing my account granted via the WMF. I would presume that goes back into the pool although, for example, if PumpkinSky needed it then I would love to be able to nominate them as transferee - I know what they do and thus how they could us it. - Sitush (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I hear you Sitush. When we're ready to evaluate the pilot with JSTOR, I can assure that on our end, we won't be asking every person with access for a report on what they used it for. In terms of how access is distributed, I agree that some kind of application would be too much overhead. And yes, if an account is unused it goes back in to the pool for someone to pick up. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"When we're ready to evaluate the pilot with JSTOR..." – when will that be? What principles will underly the evaluation, if you are ruling out editors being required to quantify or otherwise justify their continuing access? I'm afraid I have no idea what is meant by "some kind of application would be too much overhead"; perhaps you could explain. Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

[outdent] Sorry, I'm talking about two things here Brian, and probably making them sound the same. ""When we're ready to evaluate the pilot with JSTOR..." will be after the first year is up. JSTOR primarily wants to evaluate how active the accounts given out actually were, in terms of accessing the archive. We might also look at the number of JSTOR links used in citations, but that number tends to naturally grow on its own as people improve the encyclopedia, so it's not really a good metric. The second part I'm talking about is how we might give out access in a second round. I was agreeing with Sitush that making some kind of more complicated application process would be undesirable. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• If the WMF still has no one responsible for this, that is regrettable indeed. Although the "crowdsourcing" model for Wikipedia worked fine to get a few million articles, I think we are at the point where we want improvements of quality rather than quantity, and that means actual action to get resources (since we need sources to improve quality). Hunting and gathering worked great, but at some point, agriculture was found to be an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. One knows there is no one at the WMF whose responsibilities cover content (though there should be), but there are plenty of people with "community" in their job titles. Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC0
    • The WMF's number one job is keeping the site running and providing better software support. It's about 60% of our budget and staffing, and that's officially what I do. Technically speaking, this kind of partnership might fall under the purview of Kul, our head of business development, but he almost exclusively spends his time developing new partnerships for Wikipedia Zero (free mobile data access donated by carriers). I would say that if someone wants to spend more time working on something, they don't have to wait for WMF to do it. We give out quite a few grants to individuals or small teams to develop projects of interest to the community. One of those is to the Wikipedia Library project, and in the long run I am hoping that I can hand off all responsibilities to Ocaasi, who has been a very capable person when it comes to managing relationships with third parties like JSTOR. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Steven, you wrote above: "JSTOR does not actually have a model where a "site license" for a particular website's users is granted. They negotiate contracts where all students/alumni at a university or library card holders at public libraries can get access, but since Wikipedians have no formal affiliation or relationship with WMF whatsoever, they couldn't support us regardless of the issue of cost."

  The suggestion last year was that we try to negotiate a site licence for people who have one FA, or one GA if we wanted to extend it. I don't know what those figures would be, but they'd be considerably smaller than the number of members most libraries have. Those editors do have an affiliation with WMF, in the sense that we are only FA writers qua Wikipedians; the FA star would be the equivalent of the library membership fee.

  Do you know whether that was ever suggested to JSTOR? It would mean they could hand out a site licence without fear of being swamped by the world (which I assume is their concern), and that the editors willing to work on higher quality content would be the ones to gain access, rather than first-come, first-served. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea but this should not just be focused on en-wp but extended to all Wikipedia projects, i.e. those who create higher quality content at Wikipedia projects in other languages (comparable to good or featured articles at en-wp), should be eligible for JSTOR access as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds a bit self-serving. Those who have access to sources to create high quality articles get more resources. Those without the access to sources are left in the rain. The Banner talk 04:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Some" (as in "most") of us have racked up a few FAs without JSTOR access. The FA star shows we're committed and would be well-served by having broader, easier access to sources. Remember, a year ago nobody had JSTOR access through the WMF. JSTOR's a bonus, not a sine qua non. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I do see JSTOR-access as a reward for my efforts, no doubt about that. But up until very recently I did not bother about FA or GA as I don't belief in the quality ranking system. It was only a few weeks ago that I decided to take up the challenge thrown at me on the Dutch Wikipedia and started working on improving an article to FA-status (still a long way to go). I don't get a kick out of that... The Banner talk 12:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources

Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries

Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians

Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources

Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

Introduce yourself  :-)

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

One more free way to access JSTOR

They just unveiled "JPASS" which should let you read/download material. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth letting people know, before they get too excited, that it's $20/month or $200/yr, limit 10 article downloads/month (probably can read, w/o downloading, more than that). EEng (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

EEng is right, NOTHING FREE in JSTOR JPASS. What gave you the idea it was free? I still say, if wiki was serious about wanting the best sources possible, it'd get all regular users access. I'm limited to the free account, which limits you to three articles at a time and you can only rotate an article out after 14 days. It's extremely limiting. PumpkinSky talk 21:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but all JPASS deals have unlimited reading, just downloading is limited. Once again I say unto ye (graduates), check if your institution now does free Alumni JSTOR. That really is free. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All lot of the universities only give free access to alums if they are on site, ie, if you've moved away from the campus, forget it. PumpkinSky talk 01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not mine. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah crap. Sorry guys. My bad. I read the landing page without digging in to the details about signing up. They told me about it so I assumed it would be free. In any case, though it's paid, AFAIK it's the first time an individual is even allowed to pay for access. Previously you had to be a large institution. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 05:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough Steve. I do believe you are correct about the first individual paying option. IMHO $20/mo is a bit much. If they'd cut that in half I'd probably sign up. PumpkinSky talk 11:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Expired

FYI last year's passes expired yesterday. Even for those of us who activated later than December 1st. Do we have any information whether there will be an extension? Thanks. Truthkeeper88/Victoria (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I have the same problem. Username and password are still accepted but there is no free access to its contents anymore. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

That's terrible. I had planned to spend my last two weeks of access downloading a bunch of material for the long list of articles which I intend to write. I greatly appreciate the free access which I had for fifty weeks, but I'm shocked that access was prematurely removed, without notice. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've contacted JSTOR now about this. I was under the impression that access would continue until we made a decision about whether to expand, continue, or shut down the pilot program. I'll get back to everyone here as soon as I hear from them. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Steven. I've just noticed the same thing. It still says: "Your access to JSTOR is provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation." But the only access is to free articles, or I can add three items to my shelf. I haven't worked out what the shelf is yet, because I don't want to use up one of the three to explore it, but it says we can have three articles on the shelf at any one time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR has a free user option, where if you sign up you can have three items on your "bookshelf" at a time. Each item sits on your shelf for two weeks before you can replace it. What this means is that you've been downgraded to a regular free user. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems we can access three articles every 14 days from a restricted subset of articles called "Register & Read." This is "approximately 1,200 journals from more than 700 publishers, a subset of the content in JSTOR. This includes content from the first volume and issue published for these journals through a recent year (generally three to five years ago)." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am very grateful to have had a year's unrestricted JSTOR access. In that time I have managed to complete a dozen featured articles, none of which could have achieved the same standard without the JSTOR resource, and some would not have been attempted. I am not clear whether access has been withdrawn from all, or merely from those who were granted it last year. Do some users still have it? I very much hope that access can be extended generally, because the benefits in terms of article quality are obvious. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have the same problem. I got it last December and it now seems to have expired. What a pity! It was an invaluable tool for sourcing articles in my area to a high standard. I hope something can be worked out to extend our subscriptions. Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Update Hi all. I've gotten JSTOR to extend all accounts until the end of January while we discuss the future of the program. You should all be able to use your accounts again now, just as before. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for arranging that. It gives us some breathing space. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Steven, I am relieved to have access to JSTOR during this article writing competition at the end of this year. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much, Steven! Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's wonderful news! Many thanks to Steven and the people at JSTOR. I hope a deal can be worked out to further extend access, but I'm very grateful for this extension. In any case, I intend to resume my plans to conduct as much research as possible now for writing new articles on my list, as well as for improving those I've already written. JSTOR is the most valuable research tool available. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My thanks added. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

My thanks added too. Victoria (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Analysis and efficacy

Just wondering since someone had a comment above about the efficacy of the accounts being handed out "first come, first served" if anyone analyzed the following:

• How many of those accounts were actively used by the 100 editors granted free access? How were they used?
• How many GAs, FAs resulted directly from those 100 users in 2013 on account of their JSTOR access?
• How many of those users assisted other editors with JSTOR access in content improvement that led to GA or FA status?

If the project is expanded, I'd hope to be selected (high on the waiting list) in the next round, because in 2013 I had 4 FAs, 1 FL, and about a dozen GAs and look forward to doing more where JSTOR would benefit that work (where not having JSTOR slowed down the research). Sadly during that time I never ran across a user with JSTOR access or advertising their willingness help with it (and none of the institutions I have degrees from or worked for give alumni access). It's a valuable tool...just wish next time if were more available. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request has a number of active and very helpful participants with access to various electronic resources. Have you tried there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's very good, and obviously not just for JSTOR. Project pages can also be a good place to ask, if they are reasonably active. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)

The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

• Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
• Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
• New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
• Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
• Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
• Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Access extended until March 31st, unused accounts

Hi all, I've just talked to our contacts at JSTOR. Since we haven't had ample time to do all the data analysis on the pilot program so far, we've decided to continue the pilot until March 31st. In the meantime: they tell me that there are 10 accounts out of the 100 which are not registered. I am going to go ahead and redistribute these to the active editors who are next on the signup list. (Normally I would remind people, but at this point it's been a very very long time since you should have registered and it's not fair to others who were waiting.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely good news - I've been acutely aware that JSTOR access was about to evaporate... Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done! I don't know if this is the sort of feedback you are after, but in 2013 I wrote 10 FAs and co-wrote two more with the aid of JSTOR. I helped several other editors via JSTOR. I know some went on to write FAs, but I haven't monitored in any way, especially with the Hebrew language journals! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have now April 1st and the JSTOR access expired again. Are there any plans to extend access? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not have regular access any longer... Will access be extended or should we add ourselves to the list of people requesting access to get it back again when new accounts are available? Thanks.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Export Citations

There is an option for "Export Citations" in JSTOR but it is available in only four formats:

• RIS file (EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager)
• Text file (BibTex) Opens in a new window. Select "Save As" on the file menu, and save as text file.
• Printer-friendly
• RefWorks

Having an option for Wikipedia's citation style would be very beneficial, (see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=33800 for example, courtesy of Charles Matthews). Any chance this can be done? Solomon7968 12:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd second that, though of course there is no standard WP format. Personally I cut n'paste into WP most of the "view citation" stuff, & can quickly re-edit that. Johnbod (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR extended until May 31st (while we discuss expansion)

Hey all, just an update that while JSTOR and The WIkipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

Also, it would be really helpful if anyone who has participated in the pilot would fill out this survey about their usage and experience with JSTOR: SURVEY.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for extending this. Unfortunately, I still do not have access. I have the notice Your access to JSTOR is provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation but without access to the articles. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I've filled out the survey :)

Same here (also for the survey ;). – Thanks for the good work.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Me, too: got the note but still no access. Brianboulton (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the short gap in service. JSTOR says it should be up within an hour or two. Just reload your browser. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Great, my access works now. Thanks again for your help! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC

And mine, too – many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

+1. Thanks from me, too.--Aschmidt (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Have I read correctly: Is this only for Wikipedians who work on medical articles? Also, the link to the page where we're supposed to check whether we already have access isn't working… Aridd (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

1) No and no. 2) updated - was only 2 screens away. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Real name?

I don't think the page makes it clear: does one have to provide one's real-life identity to get access? Ntsimp (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Usernames and email addresses will be used and email addresses are only shared with TWL Coordinators, WMF, and JSTOR. You can use a primary email address, or a throwaway. No real names required, and what you tell JSTOR is your business. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Irish tradition music

Can someone with an account check if there is much info available on Irish traditional music? It would be counter productive to claim an account and then hardly use it... The Banner talk 12:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Banner, here's the search results for "Irish Traditional Music". I'd say there's some substantial content in there on that topic. The Interior (Talk) 16:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

medical content

Half a dozen people asked this question, but the requirements still include a peculiar mention of being active in the medical articles. What gives? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the medical statement (i hope that's the only one), that was a remnant from copying over reqs. from the Cochrane page. JSTOR accounts are open to anyone working in any discipline. Oh, and where were the half dozen other inquiries? The Interior (Talk) 16:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. In the comments on the main page, and in the talk page archives. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Citation examples

While everyone is waiting for the new accounts, one thing we need to do still is make this page: Wikipedia:JSTOR/Citations with some examples of templates to use with JSTOR-held resources. Wikipedia:Questia/Citations is a good page to follow. Any help there by citation fans would be appreciated. The Interior (Talk) 17:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How many do you want? I have loads I can dump on the page... Simon Burchell (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few styles I found after looking for a few minutes:

• Feraru, Arthur N. (May 17, 1950). "Public Opinion Polls on Japan". Far Eastern Survey. 19 (10). Institute of Pacific Relations: 101–103. doi:10.1525/as.1950.19.10.01p0599l. ISSN 0362-8949. JSTOR 3023943. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Sharp, Patrick B. "From Yellow Peril to Japanese Wasteland: John Hersey's 'Hiroshima'". Twentieth Century Literature. 46 (2000): 434–452. JSTOR 827841.
• Wyman, Walter (March 30, 1900). "Concerning plague subjects at San Francisco, Cal". Public Health Reports. 15 (14). Association of Schools of Public Health: 769. JSTOR 41451990.
• Trauner, Joan B. (Spring 1978). "The Chinese as Medical Scapegoats in San Francisco, 1870–1905". California History. 57 (1). California Historical Society: 70–87. JSTOR 25157817.
• Martin, Charles H. (Summer 1997). "Internationalizing 'The American Dilemma': The Civil Rights Congress and the 1951 Genocide Petition to the United Nations". Journal of American Ethnic History. 16 (4). University of Illinois Press: 35–61.
• Caron, Simone M. (Spring 1998). "Birth Control and the Black Community in the 1960s: Genocide or Power Politics?". Journal of Social History (Oxford University Press) 31 (3): 545–569.

These give a little bit of variation in style. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll put a few here too:

• Yates, E. M. (March 1960). "History in a Map". The Geographical Journal. 126 (1). London, England: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers): 32–49. ISSN 1475-4959. JSTOR 179042. OCLC 55225660. Retrieved 2014-07-13. (subscription required)
• Caso Barrera, Laura; Mario Aliphat F. (April–June 2002). "Organización política de los itzaes desde el posclásico hasta 1702". Historia Mexicana. 51 (4). Mexico City, Mexico: El Colegio de México: 713–748. ISSN 0185-0172. JSTOR 25139407. OCLC 181416455. Retrieved 2013-04-08. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) (in Spanish) (subscription required)

Simon Burchell (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The example given on the signup page uses a Questia URL. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Approval schedule

Hi all, I thought I would let everyone know my schedule for getting the new JSTOR accounts out. As I'm a new coordinator, and JSTOR has a slightly different workflow for awarding accounts than our other partners, I'll be talking to the old coordinators to figure it out. I will start evaluating accounts now, but due to volume this may take me a week or two. So, if all goes smoothly, expect responses in the second week of July. I apologize for the delay, but will do my best to get these out ASAP. Regards, The Interior (Talk) 18:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your volunteer work in helping other editors provide references. Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I had great timing for finding the Jstor information. I appreciate you taking on this work and for giving a general timeline. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this info and especially for doing all the work this involves. This project has great potential for improving citation quality and verifiability. Paulscrawl (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What an incredible job of clearing the entire wait list in just a day or two! Major kudos! Just one thing ... when should newly approved expect email for login/temp password info? If auto-sent, not received on my end. Thanks, and please get some sleep. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Paulscrawl. JSTOR has a more convoluted system - I don't have the logins. I'll be emailing out forms to everyone, starting tomorrow (taking a break today - it's my birthday!). The forms will populate a spreadsheet, which goes to JSTOR. They do the password/temp login mailout. The Interior (Talk) 00:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work and the update despite your birthday. I hope you enjoy your birthday! ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Happy birthday! Enjoy a drink or two on me - and don't forget to shut off Wikipedia notifications for a well-earned break. Thanks again for all you do. Paulscrawl (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to let admins know, I received my email invite from JSTOR today. Instructions clear for first-time users and those with previous account. I already had a limited account with the Register & Read (R&R) program, so I just clicked the second link in the email, clicked the top right login link at its landing page, logged in at following page and all good. Thanks to all who helped make this possible. Hope lessons learned are put in institutional memory for use next year.

Addenda: See Register & Read R&R account upgrade section below for some troubleshooting info - Paulscrawl

Register & Read (R&R) account upgrade

R&R use note: I see after login that JSTOR now recognizes me as a Wikipedian: "Your access to JSTOR provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation" - but checking My Shelf it apparently still has me at R&R account limits: "You can have up to 3 items on your shelf at one time, and you can remove them after 14 days." Both messages on same page: http://www.jstor.org/action/showShe (seen after logging in, of course).

Is this normal behavior? What are the shelf limits for Wikipedians with no previous R&R account? Paulscrawl (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

sent edited version of above as support request to JSTOR, att: Wikipedia specialist, per approval email instructions - will report back. - Paulscrawl (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another step coming?

I have received the mail and filled out the required form. Is there another step coming? The Banner talk 12:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Banner, JSTOR has the spreadsheet with all of the contact information, we're just waiting on them to send out the access codes. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will wait (impatiently ) The Banner talk 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am mightly confused. It seems my name is on Wikipedia:JSTOR/Approved but I have not received any email (and I know it works as other Wikipedians have emailed me off-wiki through my account) and have no idea what I'm supposed to put in at the login / registration prompt for JSTOR itself. Are there any instructions anywhere? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

An unreasonably high proportion of these types of emails seem to end up in Junk or Spam folders for some reason. It could be that, if you've not already checked there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless it was sent with a subject line of "Use JSTOR to enlarge your penis size!" (I'm a father of two, my "equipment" works fine) ... doesn't look like it. I did get something entitled "Wikipedia Shows Content Google Forgets" on 8 August, but that's a straight spam as it originally went to an email address I no longer use and have never linked to my account here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, we're still working on the Round Two today. Emails with a quick form are on their way soon, which will be followed by an email from JSTOR with a login for you. As Demiurge mentions, a few have ended up in junk folders - we're discussing how to make this not happen. The Interior (Talk) 16:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. There's no rush from my end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Accounts Update - Round 2 approved accounts, stragglers

Folks, here's where we are with the second round of applications. We are working on sending forms out to all Round Two people shortly. We are also rounding up contacts from late replies, and accounts missed from Round 1. Our JSTOR contact is on vacation until Sept. 2 - sometime after JSTOR will be getting logins mailed out to our Round 2 recipients. Thanks for your continued patience. The Interior (Talk) 17:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Grmbl... I had the idea that I screwed up! The Banner talk 17:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward to my JSTOR access, thanks for keeping us updated. --prokaryotes (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us informed. Pelarmian (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Emailed forms have gone out today - please check your inboxes. Unfortunately, you may need to check your spam inbox as well. Let me know if you are approved for Round Two, but did not get an email today (excluding anyone who has emailed me personally) - you can send a mail to earleypathotmail.com, and I'll enter your email manually into our list for JSTOR. Regards, The Interior (Talk) 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Got the email, went to the Google document attached, added my username and email - what happens next? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Original 100 accounts still active?

Hi, are the original 100 accounts still active? I seem to have been shut out from full access to articles. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the same happened to me as well. I am no longer able to access articles. Last week it worked for me. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Same here.. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocaasi can confirm this, but I believe the original accounts expired on July 15, and the new ones will be active as soon as I get the list of usernames and emails to JSTOR (or soon afterward, I hope). Apologies for any research interruptions. I should have left a note here that this was happening. The Interior (Talk) 00:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. So will the original accounts be rolled over automatically or do we have to reapply? Simon Burchell (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't need to. I moved all the active accounts from the original 2012 applications over to Wikipedia:JSTOR/Approved. You three all are on there. It was kind of sad to see all the inactive accounts ... The Interior (Talk) 00:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, new accounts will be sent out to all of the original 100 plus the new approved signups. Working on getting that done ASAP. Amazing processing job by The Interior made that possible. Thanks!! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks for all the hard work on this... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

May I ask for the current state of the reactivation of the old accounts? I have recently started to work on articles about three related monastic sites and national monuments in County Mayo, Ireland. This includes Rathfran and Moyne where JSTOR was very valuable as source but Rosserk is still missing and I would need JSTOR access to complete this. I would be grateful if I could work on this at the next weekend. Thanks and best regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

AFBorchert, and all, here's where we stand: working this week on getting all the mailouts of forms to approved done. As mentioned above, there is a second step, where we share the form results with JSTOR, and they do the final mailout of passwords/logins. So, optimistically, we are looking at next week before access gets out to users. Apologies again for the longer process here. AFBorchert, you may have to drop by WP:RX for this weekend's work :( The Interior (Talk) 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Interior, this is very much appreciated. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the update. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi The Interior, many thanks for organizing this. I was wondering if you had an idea of when access will be restored. I've had to abandon a peer review for FGM because I couldn't check the sources, and it would be good to have a sense of when it can be re-opened. Pinging Victoriaearle and Brianboulton, because I know they've been interested too. Thank you again for sorting it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, sorry to hear that the holdup is impacting reviews. We're doing what we can to move things along. When I last talked to Ocassi (last Thursday), we had started the mailout of forms through Madman's bot. If you've filled out the form, or got your email to Ocaasi manually, then you're on list that has been given to JSTOR. From there, we're working with their schedule to get the passwords to editors. We will be monitoring how quickly this happens, and prodding in a friendly manner if necessary. In retrospect, we should have requested an extension for the original 100 accounts to cover the crossover from pilot to the expanded partnership. Next time ... The Interior (Talk) 20:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I did get the email and I returned my email address. I'm hoping we can keep the same accounts as before, and those passwords are still working, so could JSTOR simply be asked to re-activate them? Or can you ask for extensions now to deal with the crossover period? Keeping the old accounts would be preferable because we have saved citations in them, which now can't be read or downloaded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, saved citations, didn't know about that. Hmm, I'll talk to Ocaasi about it, but right now it looks like everyone is getting new accounts. I'll see if there's anything we can do about keeping the original accounts intact. The Interior (Talk) 22:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We're allowed to save citations to read or download later, so keeping our original accounts might be important for lots of people, especially as the access disappeared suddenly. Can JSTOR be asked simply to extend those accounts until the new arrangement is in place? Pinging Steven in case he knows a good way to do this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

They have done this for us before, so apparently it's pretty trivial. Ocaasi, you want to ask? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Answering SlimVirgin's ping - I save citations, had a bunch stashed that I meant to download but RL issues interrupted the process. When I last tried to log in, a week or so ago, I got a yellow error message and couldn't get in at all. I have filled out the information requested in the email, but it would have been nice to have known that the accounts were closing. If we can get the original account back, that would be nice too. Thanks all. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will ask tonight about an extension for at least two more weeks so that people can transfer what they need from saved citations. Apologies for the gap here, it's taken longer than expected, and we could have easily avoided it by just not turning off access until the new ones were ready. Next time we'll aim for maximum continuity. Sorry. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocaasi and Steven (WMF), why can't the existing accounts be reactivated? I haven't a clue if "transferring citations" from one account to another is technically feasible. Some of the citations I'd saved were to quite large files and hard to download, so instead I often read online. But, yeah, if we can reactivate existing accounts, then getting in to retrieve the links would save hours of having to retrace tracks in researching. Victoria (tk) 00:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ocaasi, thank you. Just to support what Victoria says, it would be easier if we could just keep the old accounts (easier for everyone, surely, not just us). I'm like Victoria, I prefer not to have to download articles if I can avoid it, because some of them are large. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I will ask. You're caught up in an unfortunate bit of bureaucratic shuffle because the original agreement was with WMF and the new agreement is with TWL. When WMF first collected email addresses, that did not include permission to share that info with TWL for management. So we thought it would be simpler to just rerun signups (also because it had been 18 months and we free up lots of new accounts by clearing out the decent number of original signups that have gone inactive). In the meantime, I'll aim to have original access extended at least until we have the transition nailed down. I wish this was less frustrating, and I'm sure it is, but in one small way this is a result of our success here. The original signups were extended 6 months and we got 400 more accounts, so I'm trying to stay optimistic about the whole thing while still recognizing how maddening it is to suddenly lose something you rely on. Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake. Can anyone who wants their original account simply send Steven an email, cc-ed to you, saying "You have my permission to share my email address with the TWL"? Not everyone will care, but those of us who want the original account could then just transfer. Or would that create a lot of extra work your end? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping Ocaasi. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't think that would be too much work as I could process it if I was cc'ed, and that's no big deal. But I'm not sure if that is sufficient--whether JSTOR and the new agreement will require a clean switch-over. I'm happy to ask, even if it's just for a few exceptions. Workin' on it :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jake! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good news from JSTOR: SlimVirgin, Victoriaearle, Brianboulton: "Hi, Jake – No problem, I’ve asked the Support staff to update the original accounts to be valid through 8/15. I’ll let you know as soon as that is done – should be within minutes/hours. With the program extension/expansion, all of the editors will retain their original accounts with all of their saved citations. They will just have to click through a new link and log in with their existing account username and password. At that time, their accounts will be updated with the new expiration date in 2015. Even if we were to cancel the program access at some point in the future, they will still retain their MyJSTOR accounts and access to saved citation lists, even though they would not be able to access the full-text content." So it looks like all is/will be resolved. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I will keep watching this page. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Working now – thanks all. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Ocaasi for your work on this issue! Binksternet (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• My account is once more working ... thanks to all that got this fix in! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ocaasi, it's back. Thank you for sorting it out! Steven, The Interior, thank you! And that's great news about retaining the old accounts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Wow, my account is operational again. Thank you for making this possible! Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just want to note that today I got an email from JSTOR that allowed me to renew my account. Thanks again for your help in making this possible. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've not had an email for renewal, in spam or elsewhere. I've just been able to reset my password but when I do a search (I've tried several different ones), everything in the results list is marked as inaccessible. Even stuff that I've read previously and even though the box at top right says that I am logged in. Weird. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, our JSOTR rep is back from vacation on Tuesday - I'll look what's happening with your account. The Interior (Talk) 17:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Interior: thanks very much. I could have sworn it was working a week or so ago but perhaps I found what I wanted on the opening page of whatever article it was. - Sitush (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Interior: I don't want to seem like a pest but is there any update on this, please? I've got a couple of WP caste articles where I'm fairly sure that the sources are being misrepresented but the citations are for JSTOR-hosted content and I can't see the papers. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush:, I was told it was being looked into, but I'll follow up. The Interior (Talk) 15:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Process question

I'm unclear on the process here. I received the signup form on Tuesday, September 2, and immediately filled it out. Am I going to hear something more? Should I already have registered with JSTOR? I haven't done that yet. John M Baker (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

John M Baker, Ritchie, we are waiting on JSTOR - I'm pinging them this morning to get an update. Everything is done on your end - both of you are on the list that has been sent to JSTOR. The Interior (Talk) 15:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Access?

Hi! Several weeks ago, I received an email saying I needed to complete my registration at the JSTOR end, which I did. However, as of today, I still don't have access beyond the three free shelf items JSTOR always gave me. Was this access supposed to give me something else? MeegsC 01:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

MeegsC, see below. The Interior (Talk) 17:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Does it matter that I already had access once? I was one of the original JSTOR account recipients. It worked fine until a couple of weeks ago. MeegsC (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@MeegsC: You are eligible even if you had an account before; you do still need to a) apply b) fill out the form with your email (even if you did that before). The reason is, the original info was handled by WMF and this round is handled by The Wikipedia Library. Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I've done both weeks ago, so I guess that now I just wait to hear from you! Twiddling my thumbs in the meantime, darn it.  :-/ MeegsC (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I hate to be a pest, but the account that was working fine until the middle of August is now not working at all, despite my having jumped through all appropriate hoops (at least as far as I know!) to "re-up". Will I soon get my full access back? Right now, most things on JSTOR are off-limits to me. I can put three articles on my shelf every two weeks, but that's it, which means I'm not going to be providing new references at a very rapid rate. MeegsC (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It's working now. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't work, don't care to pursue it

I applied, received approval email, did the thing, and nothing. Do not care to troubleshoot further. Please exclude me / withdraw my application. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sign up doesn't work?

I had the same experience with Hobbes Goodyear above. Received the email, followed the instructions, then nothing happens. Tried again after a few weeks, still the same. I'd really like to have jstor access. Could someone please look into it? Thanks! -Zanhe (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zanhe (talk · contribs). I'm sorry for the disruption. We reported the issue to JSTOR and they'd like you or others experiencing any issues to

contact JSTOR directly for technical support through this form:

http://www.jstor.org/action/showContactSupportForm.

Please let me know how it goes. Best, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

via jstor

Hi: I recently used my JSTOR account to add some references to the black catbird article, and put the subscription template at the end of the citation, as requested on this project home page. Another user (Materialscientist, who I've invited to comment here) has removed them, saying that the subscription message makes it appear the articles are only available there, and that "there are many more [free PDFs] that may appear in the near future". Our original conversation is here. How should I proceed? MeegsC (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think placing that disclaimer, example from Black catbird:

Dunn, Jon (December 2004). "Review: The TOS Handbook of Texas Birds". Wilson Bulletin. 116 (4): 366–367. Retrieved 9 August 2014. – via JSTOR (subscription required)

violates WP:UNDUE, i.e. Wikipedia policies may override JSTOR advice. Many JSTOR articles can also be accessed via other databases (like SORA) or at the original publisher's site (e.g. doi:10.1676/0043-5643(2004)116[0366:TTHOTB2.0.CO;2] for JSTOR 4164705 in the above example), even if the wikiarticle writer accessed them via JSTOR subscription or offer. We may not put undue weight on JSTOR access, unless it is free for everyone. Note, that we don't particularly favor Google Books for ISBN links, even though many Google Books are free to read. Materialscientist (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Surely it should only depend on where the link goes? If the link is actually to JSTOR, it should show the "via" statement and make it clear that that link requires a subscription; if an editor finds a free copy of that article elsewhere, it can be replaced. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, but a more neutral way to code that link would be |jstor=4164705, as we do with doi, pmid, etc. locators. By default they all need subscription, yet adding "Subscription required" is Ok. My objection was against adding "via JSTOR (subscription required)", when JSTOR is not a unique host for the aricle. Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article can only be accessed through paid subscription, then I think it's useful to the reader to know which database is involved -- I can access JSTOR, for example, so the example citation you give is useful to me because I can tell by looking at it that I'll be able to access it. If you take off "via JSTOR" I have to click or float the mouse to find out if I'm going to be able to read it. Is it the case that some citations offer multiple links to subscription-only sources? In that case I can see it being a little odd to have "via XXX, YYY and ZZZ", but short of that it seems a convenience for the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I generally provide the jstor link through the jstor field in the citation template. I try to provide a doi for all citations also - when possible. If there are both, I list both. An example: {{cite journal|author=Brooks, F. W. |title=William de Wrotham and the Office of Keeper of the King's Ports and Galleys|journal= The English Historical Review |volume=40 |date=October 1925 |pages=570–579 |doi=10.1093/ehr/xl.clx.570 |jstor= 552525}}. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So what's the takeaway from this? I had only put "via JSTOR" on those articles which had no free copies available online (i.e despite the above inference, I hadn't put that on any article I could access from SORA). I had added that parameter as requested on the JSTOR project page, and have been twice reverted by Materialscientist. I don't like edit wars, and I don't like being reverted when I'm trying to do the right thing, so I'd appreciate some "official" guidance here! If this violates WP:UNDUE, as suggested by Materialscientist, then perhaps that needs to be thrashed out first? MeegsC (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires that a Wikipedia article must "fairly represent[ ] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I don't see it as saying anything about citation style.

The applicable guidance instead is in WP:SOURCELINKS and WP:JSTOR. WP:SOURCELINKS tells us that it is not necessary to cite to JSTOR or to link to its database. WP:JSTOR tells us that if we do cite to JSTOR, we should credit it and denote the subscription requirement.

I believe that citing to JSTOR is an appropriate courtesy for editors with Wikipedia JSTOR accounts. I note that JSTOR is a valuable resource that is being made available to Wikipedia for free, and crediting our source is a very small price to pay. I do not see any corresponding advantage to deleting the "via JSTOR" parameter, particularly for sources that do not have any free access. John M Baker (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As previously noted, WP:UNDUE is inapplicable in this context, as it applies to article content, not the aggregator (JSTOR) of a cited source.

Pagination and editorial revisions (additions, deletions, modifications) are very frequently at issue when it comes to author's self-archived copies of published works - they can not be assumed to be identical copies. Courtesy links to self-archived sources are certainly useful to some, but the canonical version is in fact the published one.

The most specific Wikipedia content guideline applicable in this case is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Say where you read it. The via JSTOR magic link takes one not to JSTOR (the linked article title does that), but to the Wikipedia JSTOR article, where the JSTOR article's External Links clearly highlight that it is not subscription required, but registration required for both those with institutional access (for academia and a great many public library card holders) or universal free individual access, through JSTOR's Register and Read program. No pay wall (not that this is relevant, per the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT guideline). So I see no problem with crediting JSTOR and it should be encouraged if you want to see better content here. We should start using the registration parameter rather than the subscription parameter to clarify this very important accessibility distinction.

Needless to say, JSTOR (as well as each of the other content partners in the the Wikipedia Library program) is hoping for advertising that money literally can't buy. So be it. It's a win-win. But you can be sure these links will be measured, to gauge the value of participation in the Wikipedia Library to the companies involved. Without those links, a Wikipedia content guideline (and common courtesy) is violated for no good reason and a valuable program's future is possibly jeopardized, to the detriment of improved Wikipedia content and citations.

Give credit where credit is due. That's not undue. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts here:

• Citation examples are examples of a recommended but not required style. We chose them because they are machine-readable, accurate, and complete. No citation style on Wikipedia is "required", however.
• We recommend the |via= parameter because of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If you got it from JSTOR, you should say that. If it's available free elsewhere, then cite the free version instead since everyone will be able to read it. On the other hand, the mere notion that something may one day become free strikes me as WP:CRYSTAL and uncompelling; if something is not free to read now, then the citation should reflect that.
• 'Subscription required' acts as a warning to the reader that there is some barrier to entry. If there is a less severe option such as 'Registration required', feel free to use it.
• WP:UNDUE indeed does not apply here, as citations are not articles, WP:JSTOR is not a policy, and there is no question of WP:WEIGHT in a citation. We include as much as is useful in a citation to serve the reader. Citations are not neutrality battlegrounds, they are tools for readers to find and access content.
• There is no doubt that exposure of the publisher or database in a citation will help lead to future donations from those and similar publishers and databases. If you value this outcome, then it makes further sense to use the parameter.
• Questions of whether you should try and prohibit others from using the recommended citation style, or what to do if others try to prevent you from using it, are best handled on a case-by-case bases. Most editors will not object to this recommended style as, far as I can tell, it's neither explicitly promotional, against policy, or otherwise problematic. For prolonged disputes about this question, we should have an RfC either here or at WP:V. Is there really a problem of such scale yet that we need such a discussion?
• I'm open to all opinions on this and the above are my thoughts but not a final determination of anything of course. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments. I've reinstated the "via JSTOR" parameter, having also left Materialscientist's addition of DOIs and stable JSTOR numbers. I fully endorse Paulscrawl's suggestion of using the "registration required" parameter rather than the subscription required parameter, and am headed off the change everywhere I've used the latter. MeegsC (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That's great MeegsC (talk · contribs). Would you be so kind as to also similarly update the citation examples on WP:JSTOR so that other editors can benefit from your thoughtful review of best practices here? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Will do, Ocaasi (talk · contribs). One thing I've discovered though is that the {{Registration required}} template doesn't accept any parameters, so I can't say "via JSTOR" using that. I've put a request on the template's talk page, asking if the parameter can be added. In the meantime, I suggest we use the |via=JSTOR |registration=yes option! MeegsC (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work on the JSTOR citation examples, MeegsC. The second example - for use outside a {{cite}} or {{citation}} template - clearly shows the wholly inaccurate ("subscription required") workaround we are stuck with at present.

I seconded your request to add a via parameter to the {{Registration required}} template on that template's talk page, adding a few reasons summarized by myself and Ocaasi. Our requests were made two weeks ago and not a word of response, yet. Is this template orphaned by its developer(s)? Can this request - for what is likely a simple copy and paste job from the identical functionality of the {{Subscription required}} template - be escalated?

Would JSTOR account beneficiaries - that's you, if you're reading this - please add a word or two of support for that request? Not here, but here: Template Talk:Registration required - Can a parameter be added? Thanks, all! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I spelled out the exact code changes needed to the registration required template - laboriously - and got an admin to quickly take that one-off two-line code off full protection. We can make it as robust as 10-line subscription required code inside 10 minutes without risk - just add a hidden category and make 6 text substitutions. See link directly above. Who has the chops? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Paulscrawl, et al., please see the note I added to Template Talk:Registration required - Can a parameter be added?. I'd be willing to tackle this, as I suggested on that page, if you like.

I will point out, however, that while {{citation|subscription=yes|via=JSTOR}} places the page into the hidden category Category:Pages containing links to subscription-only content, and {{citation|registration=yes|via=JSTOR}} places the page into Category:Pages with login required references or sources, please note that the |via= parameter has no effect on the categories in either citation template instance. Should you wish to separately address that situation, I'm probably not comfortable making those changes, given the complexity of the citation family of templates.  —Grollτech (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Application list guidelines

Hi, could those who are administering applications please amend the instruction blurb at the top of the New applications section to read:

# Add yourself to the bottom of this list with #{{user8|USERNAME|Project=code}} (e.g. {{user8|Example|Project=en}}), active areas on Wikipedia, and how you would use access to JSTOR.

Currently, some applicants add their entries to the top of the queue while others add them to the bottom. Thanks. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Cpt.a.haddock, thanks for the suggestion, done. Re-ordered the applications by time stamp. The Interior (Talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Round 3 - Form going out soon

Hello all editors who applied since Round 2 - you've been approved, and will be receiving emails in the coming days with the simple form. JSTOR will contact you with login details after this. I also will be including the several users who missed Round 2 but contacted me through email. If you've been missed, and haven't talked to me, please reply here or email earleypathotmail.com. Best, The Interior (Talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Interior: It's been almost a week and I haven't seen anything in my Inbox or spam folder. I just wanted to check. – Maky ^« talk » 17:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Interior: thank you for the email from MadmanBot, 4 hours ago. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Emails sent

The email forms have been sent out. I'm going to leave at least five days for people to get their emails in, then send our list to JSTOR. So, hopefully accounts active next week. Again, please email me at earleypathotmail.com if you are approved, but are not seeing a Wikipedia email in your inbox. The Interior (Talk) 21:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Interior: Should I have seen a response? I filled in the form but I still haven't heard from JSTOR about an active account. WCM_email 00:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, it's in JSTOR's hands now - I expected them to go out this week, but I'm guessing Thanksgiving got in the way. I will check in with our contact Monday if I haven't heard back. They're on their way though (and you're on the list). The Interior (Talk) 06:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the update. WCM_email 10:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@The Interior: Still nothing after 9 days. Any updates? – Maky ^« talk » 06:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Round three delivered

Ancheta Wis, Maky, and all Round Three applicants: just received notice that the JSTOR access emails have been sent. Look for a message with subject: "Your Access to JSTOR - Wikipedia Pilot Program". Please reply here if you did not receive an email from JSTOR. The Interior (Talk) 23:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

citation examples

Hi, one of the citation examples uses "registration required", the other "subscription required". Shouldn't this both be the latter? --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Round 4 timeline

Account processing has been delayed by the holidays, but will start up again first thing next week (January 5th). Applicants, watch your inboxes (and unfortunately your spam boxes) for emails after that date. The Interior (Talk) 17:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Account bound to a certain ID?

Is the account bound to exactly one ID? After registration I changed to an other computer tried to login and received the message: „The information you provided does not match our records. Please check your username and password and try again.“ I tried several times again and used than the procedure „Forgot your username or password?“. After that it works well, but now – in a different city with a different router – I have the same trouble again. Has somebody same experience or some knowledge about that? Greetings --Konrad Stein (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I can ask our JSTOR person about this problem next week. The Interior (Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I found the problem (and a solution), so everything is allright now. Thanks. --Konrad Stein (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we decline JSTOR ????

Hello, though I signed up for one of those "jstor-caccounts" - I was thinking about it: Is is really the mean of wikipedia to cite restricted contents, or not?

Acutally the policy of wikipedia is: that all content can be verified. This is NOT possible in citing "Jstor" articles that are not accessible freely.

Shouldn't we not better refuse their offer and say: Go to hell, JSTOR. Put your contents online for everybody, or we'd better stretch you a finger ?

I'd love to receive your comments on my purposal. Regards I'm so tired (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (talk)

Restricted sources are fine per community policy. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility. It is not necessary that they be freely available, as long as there is some way for people to check / access them. Cheers.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that many hard copy sources are not easily available either, and that JSTOR articles are in many cases digital versions of hard copy articles. As frustrating as paywalls are, it is better to find a way to get community access rather than ban an important resource. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose part of the issue is verifiable by who?. I have a WP JSTOR account and, within reason, I'm happy to help other editors with some verification tasks. However, I'm not sure I can also make myself available to help the general public who need JSTOR access to get verification answers. jxm (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Much of what can be found in JSTOR is probably also at local college libraries, so it's not too difficult to verify.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are (mostly) not a help desk. The purpose of verifiability is to ensure that the content has a sound basis. That some people can't see it, or would need to go to a library or whatever, is completely beside the point. Also, in the event that there is a challenge, we have resources such as WP:RX for those Wikipedians who wish to investigate further but lack access. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Subscription required

There is a debate him and talk page about the "Subscription required" flag. Most readers will assume that means they need a subscription. That is false. I strongly dislike the "subscription" tag for articles because it warns readers away. In fact, the URL link indicates the source is much more easily available for the great majority of Wikipedia users. they can get at a minimum access to an abstract or first page, and if the person is at a university they usually get the full article free. For that matter, most of our readers can get nearly every book and article for free by going to the local library and using interlibrary loan. In this regard, journal articles coded subscription are equally or more accessible as the books which are not coded "subscription". Let me ask whether JSTOR imposed that flag on us or someone editor made it up? Rjensen (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. My citations are pretty complicated and the template was problematic, so I didn't use the Citation template because I needed the citation to work. I used 'via JSTOR'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the JSTOR material is markedly superior to what we have been used to. This is totally worth it for the global user. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

it's great! let me add that the "subscriptions" involved refer to libraries (and Wiki editors), not Wiki readers. Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you point us to where that discussion is taking place? As an aside, I have access to the libraries of 3 universities and 1 national research organization, none of them including JSTOR, so it's less common than you might think... --Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

the discussion was at Talk:Benjamin Tillman. JSTOR says it reaches 9,200 institutions worldwide (including over 1,500 in Africa and other developing nations). Rjensen (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In 2012 JSTOR launched a program providing no-cost access to three items of older articles, for a period of fourteen days for individual scholars and researchers who register. That means for the typical Wikipedia reader, no subscription is needed For direct access to older JSTOR articles. Rjensen (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Next step

I was told I was approved and filled out a Google Docs form and haven't heard anything since. What is the next step? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ditto.—indopug (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

All approved accounts/emails are in JSTOR's hands, still waiting on an update from them ... The Interior (Talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Round 4 out by end of Friday

Just talked to JSTOR - they apologize for the long delay with this round. The accounts will be mailed out by close of business, EDT, this Friday. Thanks for your patience. The Interior (Talk) 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What's accessible, what's not

Hello all, we've had some queries about what content is accessible for Wikipedia accounts in the JSTOR database. Here's a rundown from JSTOR: "The content set currently available to the Wikipedia editors includes all of our archival journal collections [3] (now about ~2,000 journals) and the 19th Century British Pamphlets [4] collection (26,000 pamphlets), but the books (~20,000) and the current journals [5] (more recent issues for ~300 titles) are not available in the Wikipedia pilot. These are separate programs and our agreements with the publishers don’t allow us to include them in special access programs at this time. Sorry for any confusion about this."

To avoid seeing abstract/summary only results, select the "Content I can access" button when in the search window, or select the "Content I can access" tab in the search results window. Pinging OR drohowa, Cpt.a.haddock. Let me know if this answers your question, I know it was the books results that were confusing me. The Interior (Talk) 21:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps :) IMO, this information should be added to the JSTOR project page (the intro of which states that "complete access" is provided) to let applicants know what they will and won't have access to.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:The Interior, thanks for this information- this pretty much clears up my question as I was looking in recent issues of current journals, so I image those are ones not available in the Wikipedia pilot. I'm with User:Cpt.a.haddock that this information should be listed somewhere on the main JSTOR project page, so no one gets the wrong idea when they sign up. Thanks for all you do! OR drohowa (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New reference tool

There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

.. but that means testing VE. Not for me, I'm afraid :( Sitush (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It does mean that, and I know some editors really dislike VE. Perhaps this is a good place for me to say I have switched from wikitext to VE almost completely, and find VE a much more productive editing environment, although there are still plenty of issues with it. I think it's worth trying for editors who work mostly with pure content -- it's not very good yet for wikignomish work like categorizing one article after another. There are still significant bugs though, so if anyone does decide to try it it's worth keeping an eye on the feedback page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Round 5 email collection

Late Friday we sent out an email form to Round 5 approved editors. I will be forwarding completed forms to JSTOR this week. Please get your responses in as soon as you can. Thanks for your patience, The Interior (Talk) 14:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Any idea when we can expect to hear from JSTOR, The Interior?

I've set up meeting with our rep for Friday, Briancua. Will prompt them to get them out before then though. The Interior (Talk) 20:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Metrics

Hi all, I've just filled out the Metrics subpage with the latest numbers. 503 accounts have been distributed so far and there has been an increase in links of over 20% since accounts began being distributed! Sam Walton (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Via JSTOR" and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

The guidance for citing articles from JSTOR according to the project page is to include |via=[[JSTOR]], and references WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. However my reading of that guideline is that such a reference isn't actually necessary (bold emphasis mine):

You also do not need to specify how you obtained and read Smith's book; so long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the book using an online service like Google Books, using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon, on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering), through your library, with online paid databases of scanned publications, using reading machines, or any other method.

Replacing "book" with "journal" in the above example, and it seems to be describing exactly this scenario. It says you "do not need", which doesn't forbid the inclusion of |via=[[JSTOR]], it just also doesn't require it either. However at WP:JSTOR we are claiming that this guideline does say it's necessary.

I've no particular objection to including |via=[[JSTOR]], but if we're going to do that, we should do it explicitly acknowledging that there is no guideline or policy that requires the inclusion of this information, and that we're doing it to provide JSTOR with publicity in return for the free access they're providing to Wikipedia editors.

Equally, I've no particular objection to gaining consensus for changing the guideline to recommend that users provide this information in the general case; if anything, I think that's a good idea. It's just not the case now and we shouldn't claim it is.

—me_and 16:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

me and, here's an older discussion on the topic. Thanks for bringing this up, as that conversation didn't really come to a consensus on it. (Will add more thoughts on this over the weekend). The Interior (Talk) 19:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think this page does say that including the via is in accordance with SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT now - that guideline is mentioned in another bullet point that discusses including original citation details, which is consistent with its provisions. The bullet about crediting JSTOR doesn't mention a rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hm, yes, okay. It does seem to me to be strongly implying that SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT is the justification for this, since that guideline (along with WP:V) are the only guidelines/policies mentioned there. If that isn't the justification then an explicit justification should be provided to make it clear that SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT isn't it. Particularly given that the advice here is different to the advice in a guideline, and local consensus is considered a bad thing. —me_and 14:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Interior: I did spot the earlier discussion, but as you note it didn't come to any good conclusion, and from quickly scanning it, nobody seemed to have made the point that SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT doesn't say what the guideline actually says.

Give it back

I recived access about a year ago, and I have had some serious problem with the account, getting logged-out and just been borked [sic]. I would like to give it back, since I do not have any use for it, much better if someone else get access. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Are the problems you've been having on your end or with JSTOR's site? If the latter we could look into it for you. Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, when I log in it is al fine, but then as soon as I get to any paper it asks me to log in to JSTOR, even though it says I am logged in...i haven't tried the last few months, but when I got the account and a few months afterwards I as not able to access anything I wouln't logged out. Will try again today and check...also I mispelled my last name as SVensson Glad when it should be a small caps V, really annoying :P (t) Josve05a (c) 11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Josve05a, how did it go? I can open up your account to someone else if you don't find it useful, but if there's a login issue, I'd like to figure that out for you instead. The Interior (Talk) 17:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It's like...odd you know. SOmetimes it works and I can read full pdf's of journals and sometimes I can't even read an abstract. Perhaps it is just some journals which is "blocked"/locked for "non-real-paying subscribers? That could explain it...? But it seems to work a little bit better now when I try to use and test it more, so that's a plus :) (t) Josve05a (c) 19:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Josve05a, there are some limitations on the package. New issues of some journals (usually 1-3 years after pub.), and the books results aren't available in full text. The second paragraph on the main JSTOR page gives details. Usually the items you can't get in full text have an "x" in the upper left corner of the search result. Do you still want to keep yours? I find it really useful as long as I'm not researching really new topics, or looking for cutting edge research. The Interior (Talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and it seems to log people out when they change locations, so make sure you're logged in before searching. You'll see "Your access to JSTOR provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation" in the upper right margin, under the logo, when you're logged in. The Interior (Talk) 22:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

New applications

Add yourself to the bottom of this list with:

#{{user8|USERNAME|Project=code}}

e.g.,

#{{user8|Example|Project=en}}), active areas on Wikipedia, and how you would use access to JSTOR.

• @Nikkimaria: does this look better than the current version ? {{Wikipedia:TWL/Expect}} scrunches the text since it is a floating box.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Xb2u7Zjzc32, that looks fine to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

QUESTION concerning log-in at JSTOR Global Plants

I was given approval to access JSTOR journals, and I duly registered after receiving their e-mail confirming my approval. I have been able to access some articles, but when I try downloading a PDF file on "JSTOR Global plants" (e.g. [6]), even after I have logged-in, I receive the reading: "The information you provided does not match our records. Please check your Username and Password and try again." In some instances, when I seek to read a "Preview" of a JSTOR article online (for free), I click onto the icon and I once again receive the reading: "1.Register for a MyJSTOR account." Is this typical for those who have been given access to JSTOR journals, to receive such replies?Davidbena (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you able to access articles normally at jstor.org (as opposed to plants.jstor.org) when logged in? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can access articles normally at jstor.org only when they are listed as free. Otherwise, I can only read a partial preview of the article. Is this normal?Davidbena (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so. Suggest getting in touch with their tech-support folks at support[at]jstor.org. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from jstor.org saying that there were general problems with access for new registers, but that they will fix the problem in the coming days.Davidbena (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't have this page watchlisted for some reason, so I didn't see this thread until now. I just contacted JSTOR Support to ask about a similar problem: my account is unable to access, it appears, any article beyond what any public account has access to. I too received an email (on November 17) saying they had problems with signup, and asking me to go to a new page and fill out a new form (which I did, because, well, why not). It was not clear from the email whether they meant trouble actually creating accounts or, as we might possibly guess now, trouble assigning access rights to accounts. I had a public account on JSTOR prior to signing up for The WIkipedia Library (I've bought a few individual articles previously), so problems creating the accounts would not have affected me, but we may possibly now infer that their issue was with assigning rights to accounts. If that is the case I would guess this to affect all or a great number of those getting access through TWL. --Xover (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Well, they sure turned around quickly after Thanksgiving. Earlier today I received a new account info / welcome email from JSTOR support and checking again I now have access to all the journals that I previously didn't (PMLA, The Review of English Studies, and Shakespeare Quarterly). A useful way to check appears to be the information jstor.org provides on most pages about your login: it previously read something fairly generic, but when I now logged in it read "Your access to JSTOR provided by JSTOR, in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation" (box in top right of page content on pages such as browsing journals by title). For others that are able to log in but not to access journal articles, checking that that box actually refers to "Wikimedia Foundation" is a quick way to verify that it's actually one of the TWL accounts and not just a personal/public account.

However, I also tried to log in on plants.jstor.org and got the same error as Davidbena, so it looks like the accounts being set up now don't actually have access to the plants.jstor.org service. I suspect that that is a "beta" or "labs" type service, and that it uses an entirely separate account system from jstor.org proper. That is, I would expect none of the TWL accounts will have this access, rather than this being isolated to just David's account. For my areas I have essentially zero use for the plants.jstor.org service, so for my own part it doesn't matter, but I imagine that for those who edit in the relevant field this is a rather critical resource. --Xover (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xover and User:Nikkimaria, I received a reply from jstor.org/support and they confirmed that "JSTOR Global Plants" is the exception, and that there is NOT automatic access to that venue, unless it were given to an institution to which the user is subscribed. They said that, in the future, they would try to make it available to us. Other than that, I have now full-access to JSTOR journals. I'm quite satisfied.Davidbena (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR Books

Is there any way I can get access to JSTOR books ?--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 08:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Satdeep gill: Not at the moment - I suggest using Resource Exchange to request any specific chapters you may need. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Citations

The expected citations are a bit more cumbersome than one would normally write:

• According to the documentation for {{cite journal}}, the |access-date= parameter is Not required for linked documents that do not change.
• One would normally use the |jstor= parameter instead of |url= and |via=.

So for the example citation

• {{cite journal |last=Ziff |first=David |title=Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |accessdate=14 April 2014 |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=841–872 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/4099480 |date=April 2005 |registration=yes |via=[[JSTOR]]}}

• Ziff, David (April 2005). "Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant". Columbia Law Review. 105 (3): 841–872. Retrieved 14 April 2014 – via JSTOR. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

So I would have written the example citation as:

• {{cite journal |last=Ziff |first=David |title=Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=841–872 |date=April 2005 |jstor=4099480 |registration=yes }}

• Ziff, David (April 2005). "Fourth Amendment Limitations on the Execution of Computer Searches Conducted Pursuant to a Warrant". Columbia Law Review. 105 (3): 841–872. JSTOR 4099480. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |registration= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

which contains the same links as the previous version. Would that be an acceptable alternative in this context? Kanguole 16:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole, thanks for this. I know that, regardless of what the documentation says, some people really like having access dates for all sources with URL; personally, I've never seen the appeal, but that's neither here nor there. Your second point is good, and I would maybe suggest putting that up as an alternative format (compare the examples at WP:OUP where a couple of different formats are presented). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Kanguole, that is an elegant citation solution. Think I'll start using that - I like its explicit rendering of the JSTOR reference number. Additionally, rendering the hyperlinked JSTOR reference # directly before the "registration required" is much clearer than hyperlinking the article title at far remove from the final "registration required" message. Good visual communication.

Agreed also on your reading of access date usage, which has nothing to do with personal preference, but actual need of verifiers and those who might search &/or archive cited version: access dates are highly appropriate for volatile content &/or unstable URLs, like newspaper articles or online journal publications, which frequently have content addendums, deletions, and editorial corrections, not to mention site re-organizations and disappearances. JSTOR's archives offer "Stable URLs" that aren't going anywhere anytime within HTTP's lifetime and the content is static. Access date for cited JSTOR content is absolutely useless visual noise. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Note that the |jstor= and |via= parameters serve distinct purposes: the former is an identifier equivalent to |doi=, |issn=, |arxiv=, etc.; while the latter is an indicator of where you found the article cited. Thus, a cited journal article found on Project MUSE, but also available on JSTOR, might have |jstor=123456 and |via=Project MUSE. And in consequence of this, despite its apparent redundancy, an article found on JSTOR should have both |jstor=123456 and |via=JSTOR.

Also, having |access-date= on these citations is actually an error; it's just that it's being suppressed when |url= is also included. As you've noted, |accessdate= is only needed, and should only be included, when the cited source is in some sense ephemeral and might have been different depending on when you accessed it. I'm not aware of any journals, online or not, that change published articles without preserving history (not that they don't exist, but I believe they are rare and, as this is an unsound editorial practice, not likely to be very reliable to begin with).

And finally, I believe using |url= to cite any article on JSTOR should be strongly discouraged. Using |jstor= to generate the link gives us central control of how the link is generated (including if JSTOR changes their link format again, as they did from /pss/ to /stable/ recently), how it is formatted, enables structured metadata (an URL is opaque; the |jstor= parameter is not), and gives readers a choice of ways to get at the cited source (jstor, doi, arxiv, pubmed, etc.).

I believe this narrows the number of "correct" examples to provide on this page considerably; with suitable support in the citation module of indicating open access content, possibly even to just one. --Xover (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, hadn't thought about it like that. I think if someone has the JSTOR ID, this is more than likely because they are accessing it through JSTOR - but providing the ID does open other access avenues. One concern with omitting URL entirely would be that people may not realize that the JSTOR ID will link to the same place. Also, can we use JSTOR ID with tools like Special:LinkSearch? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Special:LinkSearch seems to find links created with |jstor=, e.g. [7]. Kanguole 10:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The |jstor= parameter supplies an identifier, but it also indicates that the article may be accessed through JSTOR, so the |via= parameter is unnecessary in this case. Besides, "JSTOR 4099480 – via JSTOR" would look rather bad. Kanguole 10:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

To summarize my understanding:

(1) General case, Registration required: I favor using both |jstor=12345 and |registration=yes - without redundant |via=JSTOR - for the typical use, as in @Kanguole:'s original post, second example.

(2) Atypical case, Registration not required: For JSTOR Daily articles, newly released from archive to even unregistered public readers (unlike Register & Read, these articles also allow ability to download & print), but certainly not open access per their Terms & Conditions, simply leave off the registration parameter, without using open access template following - @Xover:, that was a mistake on my part. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

One year into my subscription

This has been my first year with the Jstor subscription. I hope they automatically renew it for me. I think it expires April 2016. As a source tool, this has been absolutely wonderful and invaluable to what I do. Thanks for providing it. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

— Maile , thanks so much for the note, and I'm glad it's proved useful for you. My understanding is that all accounts are renewed through Fall 2016, but I'll double check with Nikkimaria and our JSTOR contact. If you lose access in April, let us know and we'll try to rectify that. Best, The Interior (Talk) 21:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can verify that my account still works, and I am a happy user. In other words, thank you, JSTOR. It's a great resource for us as editors; our access to its content settles disputes among us, to the benefit of us all. JSTOR has set my expectations for other content subscriptions, including the user interface, the search function, and the ease of use. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

JSTOR access expired

Hi, my account belongs to the original 100 accounts which gained the initial access to JSTOR. Apparently it is time for yet another renewal as I have currently no access. Thanks for the help, AFBorchert (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi AFBorchert, you can just apply for another account at WP:JSTOR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Nikkimaria, thanks for your response. Last time this was not necessary. Is it really necessary to re-apply? I do not need a new JSTOR account, the account just need to get full access again. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do not know what happened in the meantime but I have again full access :) --AFBorchert (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

AFBorchert, Your experience today actually matches the expectation of those of us in the later cohorts: as I understand it, our JSTOR logins are good until the end of 2016. Maybe longer. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

But mine is not working ,I was also amongst the original 100Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I recall getting an email from User:The Interior to respond whether or not he should recycle each user's individual account back to the pool of available accounts, about 8 July 2015. Correction: The email was actually from The Interior's WMF account Patrick Earley <pearley@wikimedia.org> --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)