Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Using the discussion template

Put the discussion template on articles related to the concept of "open access" and rate them. If you rate them, they will be automatically sorted by class and importance on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Scope

Could you better clarify the scope of this project? I just learned of it via some banners added to pages I watch. I noticed that a number of topics which interest me are tagged with this project.

I don't understand how they're in the scope, though. From the lead of open access: unrestricted access via the Internet to articles published in scholarly journals, and also increasingly to book chapters or monographs. I can see open government being related to that, but not free software, software patents, or music piracy.

When I look at {{Open navbox}} I see a much broader focus than open access. A better main article for the project might be open source. – Pnm (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the scope of this project is. There is some general concept of "openness" which I wanted to organize. Different sources use the word "open" to mean different things. In some cases it means Transparency (behavior) and in other cases it means free to access or use. It may have other uses. If discussions on the topic of openness happened before the advent of software then I am not aware of it; so far as I know the concept is intimately tied with the notion that software is a product of potentially great value which, once created, can be replicated and distributed for free. This is why I tagged some software articles with the template.

I myself am still reviewing the literature and I created this WikiProject to clarify the scope of "open access" to myself and see who else had ideas. I work in biotech outreach and ultimately whatever came of this would be used in science policy, so that is the perspective from which I am entering this. I am going to address the point about the name in another section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Related Cfd and Tfd

These active Cfd and Tfds are of interest to this project:

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Openness – nominated for deletion; should be merged with the recently created {{Open access}}
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_7#Category:Libre – proposed rename to Open methodologies

– Pnm (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

One of those links to this also -

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_22#Template:Intellectual_property_activism,

which is still in use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Name for this project

I wanted to name this project after the all-encompassing top-level descriptor for everything which is called "open". I asked different people about this and I had trouble settling on a term. "Openness" is not really a word that is widely used, nor is the term "Open culture". User:Pnm above suggested "open source", and this term has been applied outside of software, but the term seems heavily and particularly associated with software to me and I wanted to capture both software and non-software uses of the word. It seemed to me that "open data" might work since software is data and so is anything else which could be open, but data is a restrictive word against culture, practices, and behaviors which are not termed data. I found out there was a Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science and this gentleman had previously set some precedent for calling this "open access". The open access article is currently the most developed of all articles related to openness, and it does capture the difference between open and non-open things; if people have access to something, then it is open.

Is there a better term? And more interestingly - is there any taxonomy for this in the literature or any reliable source? I would love to see any naming and classification system wherein someone scholarly has named a top-level descriptive term, then subcategories, then reviewed the applications in the field. Thoughts? Comments? I really have no idea what to think about this and would appreciate feedback, guidance, and suggestions on how to manage this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

From the article and my own experience I understand open access to apply primarily to scientific and scholarly research. I think we agree that it's closely related with a number of other topics, such as open-source software, Wikipedia, Lawrence Lessig's idea of free culture, open music, and open-source film. Creative Commons and OpenCourseWare are related, but CC isn't primarily or originally academic and OpenCourseWare is about access for learning, not research. The closely related concept of open society seems significantly to predate FOSS – an idea which didn't exist until the advent of proprietary software in 1969.

I agree "open source" is closely related to software and may not be the best umbrella term either. There may be reliable sources which have researched and classified these movements and terms, but I'm guessing they'll simply represent a few scholar's different perspectives.

Maybe we'd be better off defining the scope first. I attempted a bold definition of a somewhat broader scope on the project page. Please edit it, and let's see if we can get on the same page. – Pnm (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If your scope is broader than what I originally suggested then you have only put into words what I wished to convey. If you have more to add then feel free to do so; I am going to slow down a bit and meet with some people face to face in my city (Seattle) to discuss the articles I have tagged, what you have written in the scope section, and what they think of this WikiProject in general. Tagging articles is useful to me because I want to have some understanding of how broad this project could be, but also I do not want to tag things outside of a reasonable scope or set a precedent for showing interest in articles which will not be among our priorities. What you have written is what I was thinking, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PLoS ONE

There's a discussion going on at this article's talk page about the correct spelling of the name. Input from editors here is welcome. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I responded. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating the category name for open access

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Open_access about disambiguating the category title. While articles are usually named for their primary topic, category names should be unambiguous on their own. "Open access" could mean other things. Please participate in the discussion there. – Pnm (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another related Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Open_Access_attribution – Pnm (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiAd for WP:OPEN

It currently looks like this:

Wikipedia ads	file info – #234

Feel free to spread it by using {{Wikipedia ads}} or {{Wikipedia ads|ad=234}} on suitable pages. The former displays a randomly selected Wiki ad, the latter just this one. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The file is also available in a higher resolution: File:Provisional logo of WikiProject Open Access.png. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Now also at PLoS. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another possible WikiAd, if you want to use it. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have placed it over my WiR pages and am pondering to use it at PLoS too, where the old one is a bit worn out. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Open Access on Commons

I am considering to propose a WikiProject Open Access on Commons, so as to deal with the upload and reuse of Open Access materials across Wikimedia projects. Four members required for a WikiProject to start there. Anyone here interested in joining? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

CISPA blackout?

Should we treat CISPA the same way? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia should wait and see what other interested parties do. We are singularly ill-adapted to making the kind of quick decisions that EFF, Reddit, etc. can make. They can make a decision and implement it while we are still trying to get consensus. Because of this, we should wait and see what other major websites do, then decide whether to follow their lead. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I think too. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We have to do something, though, (I'm representing the Uncyclopedia community) because they're going to imitate us. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just like last time. Too bad we don't have Facebook's support. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if there's no black-out per say, there should at least be a banner of sorts. --ABC Order (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Copyright

This proposal relates to copyrights. Feel free to improve the consensus by clicking above. --George Ho (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Open education project

This is a new project that is supported by a few wikipedians and the Hewlett Foundation, who has broadly suported OA and OER work for years. I think it makes sense to combine that young project with this established one, somehow -- people frequenting this project might work with the new group on this. :-) – SJ + 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research

Hey all

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration with Springer Science+Business Media?

In reaction to the licensing problems in SpringerImages (cf. Signpost coverage), Springer have stated that they "will also be reaching out to Creative Commons and Wikipedia to investigate whether working together might help us to find the best approach to these challenges."

I think this could turn into a great opportunity for our WikiProject. I have listed some quick ideas for the Wikimedia end here and think they could easily be extended to include Creative Commons, e.g. by talking about the release of bibliographical metadata under CC0 (as Nature Publishing Group have just done), data publishing (I know that BioMed Central are working on this), making license information machine readable, and helping with text mining more generally. Any thoughts and suggestions welcome.

-- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 09:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• If I were to speculate, the main thing they are likely after is an understanding of how Wikipedia/Wikimedia/Creative Commons operate, what values are important in our culture; in short, the kind of understanding that would help them avoid conflict and, perhaps, be perceived as a friend and ally in the open culture movement. This is a good thing, but unless there is reason to believe they are interested in pursuing ideas like those you mention, I would personally be a little cautious about how much energy I'd put into it. It would be great if they are willing to make a substantial investment in developing ties to, and an understanding of, our efforts and volunteer base. In my view, the amount of potential benefit to Wikipedia's readership and open content is the most important consideration. Are they seeking an active partnership, or merely seeking appeasement? It may take some careful listening to determine which it is. -Pete (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• I agree if there's an opportunity here to get Springer on board with more openness (either through the release of bibliographic metadata or something else), then would be good to pursue. But save this, perhaps a more in depth discussion on norms and best practices for marking licensed works? In general, I probably lean more toward Pete's analysis of the situation at this point. But it doesn't hurt to listen. Has anyone at Springer proactively contacted WMF beyond the reference in the blog post? Tvol (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree with Pete that there is a need to be cautious about the energy put into this. Forming a proposal about collaboration in this instance is not only about building a relationship with Springer because any Wikipedian could reuse such a proposal to form relationships with any other organization, and this kind of tool is already overdue for development. I also disagree with Tvol that we need to organize a more in-depth discussion on best practices for marking licensed works - right now this is Springer's problem and I think we would do fine by offering to guide them in their training of people who can come into Wikipedia to discuss these things as peer Wikipedians rather than for us as a community to try to organize a discussion to generate proposals to present to Springer as a gift.

It is always time to offer deals. Among the things that I might propose that they do is have their staff participate in Wikipedia training, encourage their staff to become Wikipedians, fund or support a Wikipedian in Residence, or otherwise make content contributions flow into Wikipedia. In return the Wikipedia community offers to them the same excellent deal it offers everyone - membership in a noble project. They can either accept the deal now or they can accept it later but they and every other such organization is going to take the deal eventually, and I would rather they do it sooner and with forethought from the Wikipedia community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well said, Lane! I was speaking only of my personal time/energy investment into developing a proposal specific to this one organization -- I certainly agree that an invitation to them to invest their own time or resources in the ways you discuss would be a good step. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree collaboration would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Olympics controversy

I've heard about some sort of controversy over NBC having the right to remove home videos of the Olympic Games on grounds of copyright "infringement"... NBC would be the ones committing copyright infringement by claiming rights to content they don't have. I think Open Access would be interested in this article, along with articles about other sporting events where this is an issue. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a sources describing this issue? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

[1] - about the Beijing games, because the Chinese decided to engage in mass dickery (as usual). 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to find reliable sources. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Coverage from CNET. How about [2]? This one's probably more relevant: [3] - but the video does contain more than 15 seconds of infringing material. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful using someone's opinion that a company (NBC) is committing a crime. IMO, we need more than just a source saying it. Additionally, Nowpublic is hardly a reliable source. The fact that it hasn't been blacklisted actually surprises me. Nowpublic is little more than a blog, owned by Examiner.com, which IS blacklisted. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 seems to be the root of the problem. (Hint hint: I'd like large parts of it repealed.) 68.173.113.106 (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Communicate OER

Wikipedia:Communicate OER is a project to increase access to and awareness of "online educational resources" (OER). User:Peteforsyth is coordinating this. There is some overlap in the goals of this project and the scope of WikiProject Open Access. I wanted to share two of their projects here.

• Athabasca University is trying to start a project to help people develop a map of terminology and topics related to open educational resources. To me, this sounds like they are experiencing the same problem this group has in that many of the articles on fundamental open access topics need development if anyone outside the community ever wanted to use Wikipedia as an entry point to learn about open access.
• Wikipedia:Communicate OER Events on November 20 and 27 2012 there are to be live-streamed videos explaining the nature of OER.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity Heritage Library

"The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is one of the largest collections of digitized illustrations of animals, plants and other forms of life (i.e. biodiversity) on the internet." User:Gaurav is coordinating this and wants to find some way to sort this wonderful collection. He can deliver more pictures if we could find some way to feasibly argue that they are well-sorted and better known to the public; the organization only want them to be used, viewed, or otherwise appreciated.

• Commons:Category:Biodiversity Heritage Library

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Encouraging editors to integrate media from Commons into Wikipedia

User:Daniel Mietchen pointed out to me that a user posted a request that the Wikipedia community conduct GA review on the article Caenorhabditis elegans. C. Elegans is the extensively studied nematode which is a model organism, and this article needs to be a good article. I am sure the people who developed this article are able Wikipedians, but somehow they neglected to integrate much non-text media into the article. A lot exists at Commons:Category:Caenorhabditis elegans, and some more content from that category needs to go into the article.

At the end of October User:Maximilianklein developed a project to teach non-Wikipedians how to browse Wikimedia Commons to find interesting media and put it into Wikipedia articles. His tutorial is on P2P University. I was thinking of adapting what he did there to WikiProject Open Access to create a never-ending task for anyone to do if they visit this project.

Perhaps some of you know that Daniel Mietchen is managing the Commons:User:Open Access Media Importer Bot. This bot pulls non-text media files from open access science journals and posts them at Commons:Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer, where they eventually may end up at Commons:Open Access File of the Day/Nominations to be featured as "Open Access Media Files of the Day". (Also, post {{Open access file of the day}} on your user page or wherever to promote WikiProject Open Access!) It so happens that Daniel's bot has found a lot of the C. Elegans media in Commons.

I was thinking of using Max's work to teach people to integrate Commons Files into Wikipedia, along with Daniel's huge collection of very interesting media files, to create a resource to which people can link when doing GA reviews of science articles if any situation like the C. elegans situation ever arises and someone needs direction on what to do. Also, such a tutorial would be a very fun way to do outreach to non-Wikipedians by giving them an easy and productive task to do, and a fun way to exhibit the huge amount of media files which Daniel's bot is finding.

I intend to draft something soon, but I thought I would introduce the project now. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Public Relations Journal

An article relating to this project Public Relations Journal, has been nominated for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Relations Journal. Regards ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Global Health

An article relating to a journal of possible interest to this project, Journal of Global Health, has been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Global Health. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

International Journal of Forest, Soil and Erosion

An article relating to a journal of possible interest to this project, International Journal of Forest, Soil and Erosion, published in Iran, has been proposed for deletion. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Choosing Wisely - an effort to get organizational engagement in Wikimedia projects

Hello, I just posted a message on WikiProject Medicine about Choosing Wisely, a public health educational campaign with which I work. I thought it might be of interest to WikiProject Open Access since the concept of "open access" necessarily requires new kinds of collaboration between large organizations and the general public to free information which traditionally had been restricted. In a similar way, Choosing Wisely is an outreach effort by large medical societies to start sharing information on Wikipedia when previously they had not acknowledged Wikipedia as a communication channel. Anyone can see my message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Choosing_Wisely_-_a_model_for_organizational_engagement. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The article went through a review process and then went live. I just posted a question about disseminating information from this campaign onto Wikipedia. Anyone may see this question here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Health_campaign_citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Metrics for popular pages

Mr.Z-bot's Task 3 provides monthly statistics of pageviews for articles within the scope of a WikiProject (see example from WikiProject Medicine). I think this would be useful for us as well. Requests to include our WikiProject can be made here. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we need this but the processing for managing such metrics is not clear. The Analytics Team recently asked what kind of metrics users would want. I want stats about particular classes of articles, just as you are proposing. I wrote more about this on my personal blog. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave this another look and currently the queue is not accepting new applications. The notice says that it will be functional again by November. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ORCID

Project members will probably be interested in ORCID. ORCID IDs for journal contributors who have them can be obtained from http://orcid.org and added to their Wikipedia biographies using {{Authority control}}. I have also proposed adding ORCID IDs to citation templates. Anyone can create their own ORCID ID, and they can also be added to Wikipedia user pages (mine has one, for example) using the same template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. I have {{Authority control}} on my user page now. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

List of open-access journals

See discussion of possible interest to this WikiProject, at this page. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz article

Interesting changes being made at Aaron Swartz: Arrest and state charges.  (An expanded version is found at Carmen Ortiz: Aaron Swartz prosecution and suicide.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Share-alike

Hi, folks! The article doesn't seem to describe the term in detail, most notably how two licenses are described as similar or not. Can you expand it? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Article of possible interest

See this article, at the Chronicle of Higher Education. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

UNESCO makes publications more free

See article. Hopefully this sets a precedent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That's free to read, with limited options for reuse, and incompatible with CC BY-SA. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

templates

I am vaguely remembering discussion of a mini open-access template that we could use to indicate OA articles in citations? Did I imagine this? Does such a thing exist? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Wikimedia at OAI8/Reuse of Open Access materials on Wikimedia platforms/Signalling OA-ness. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

See also this discussion in which it is proposed to integrate this icon into a project to give Wikipedians access to a subscription journal - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Marking_articles_with_open_access_icon. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That discussion is long; an overview of the options is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

OA-attribution is redundant and misleading template

Hello, I have serious doubts about proper and useful naming of this project since its start. Why this project is called Open Access when Wikipedia has more strict inclusion copyright policy than just bare open access? If I would name this project, it would be maybe "Open Content" or maybe "Open Access and Open Content" or maybe "Free Content resources" or maybe completely different.

Not all texts that are open access are possible to incorporate into Wikipedia. This is the main idea and this project could more promote materials, that are more consistent with copyright policies of Wikipedia. I think, that the project name is so misleading, that even some members of the project are unintentionally doing harmful things.

Template:OA-attribution is redundant. It is impossible to replace all of its uses with something universally useful. Each of its uses must be resolved separately. It states "This article incorporates text from an open access publication: ...". Open Access means (more or less) any information that is freely available on the internet. If editors would think, that such information is enough for inclusion of text to the Wikipedia, then overhelming Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup could collapse. Generally the use of templates in copyright issues is very limited because, for example, 1) there would be need approximately such many templates for texts that are on Wikimedia Commons for images and 2) copyrights statuses are changing atl east each year and it is easy to verify such information in page history, but is is nearly impossible to verify such information from a history some template. The template OA-attribution does not provide any information that are necessary per laws. And moreover if somebody will replace some text that is really necessary with this template, then this template is illegal. I would delete the template. But if members(!) of this project are able to replace information about used CC-BY text with just open access, then I must say that this edit is:

• against Creative Commons licenses
• against Wikipedia policy
• against moral rights

I am sorry for this very criticizing message. Thank you for your attention, --Snek01 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

In short: Open access is only about availability. Copyright issues are different things. Copyright informations (especially those necessary ones) should not be replaced with informations about open access. I hope that it is clear now. --Snek01 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Snek, thanks for pointing out that {{OA-attribution}} is missing license information. I do not agree with your wider conclusions - if the project were to be renamed, then WikiProject CC BY would be a description very close to its scope, since the vast majority of activities that involve imported materials are on CC BY stuff - see, e.g., the Open Access File of the Day or the Open Access Media Importer. We are fully aware that open access is frequently used in the sense of free to read, even though the most authoritative definition basically equates it to CC BY. A proposal exists as to how to signal more clearly how open some reference actually is, and your input on that would be much appreciated. {{OA-attribution}} was part of an earlier attempt into the same direction, and somehow remained incomplete. I'll work on that soon and get back to you here then. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:04, 24 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)

== Access2Research needs maintenance ==

User:Cyberbot II has tagged multiple links in Access2Research as blacklisted because they contain the word petition. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested here: [4] -Pete (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious now that you state it but I did not immediately see that the word "petition" in the link was a problem. This is not a problem with Access2Research, but rather a problem with the bot and tagging. Let me talk to the operator. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's a (more appropriate) request somebody else filed here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#petition Hopefully this gets closer to the source of the problem. -Pete (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And it seems there is a resolution (or at least, movement toward resolution) -- see here: [5] -Pete (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2014 London

This year's Wikimania is only just over but we're already looking towards the next one. It will be held in London and one of the tracks will be on open access. I'm working as the Open Access Community Liaison to help bring together the Open Access and Wikimedia communities. At the moment we're focusing on identifying open access initiatives in both Wikimedia and the wider world in order to find ways to enable collaboration. All help is appreciated, so if you're interested keep an eye on the Open Access Advocates page on the conference wiki. We've also started a brief history of Wikimedia's engagement with open access in order to trace past work in this area.

Hopefully see you in London! --Lawsonstu (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Hey folks! One of The Wikipedia Library's goals is to Promote broader open access in publishing and research.

I wonder if we could connect the library portal to this wikiproject by placing the Library navigation box somewhere in this WikiProject.

Let me know what you think. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Planning WikiProject Open

Everyone: several of us have been talking about starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Open, which would support the improvement of topics like open educational resources, open access, and free/open source software. Please join us this Thursday for a planning discussion! Or add your ideas to the page or talk page. -Pete (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this Pete! Lawsonstu (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know it resonate :) -Pete (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Lane for all his contributions and sorry Daniel couldn't join. Looking forward to next steps. - Sara FB (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Open has been developing further: see WikiProject Open, its project planning and talk pages. - Lawsonstu (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: We have two webinar planning sessions scheduled during the week of October 14 -- the first is during waking hours for the Americas, Asia, and Australia; the second, for Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Please join us -- the specifics are on our WikiProject Open planning page. -Pete (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz RfC: Should the bio lead say Swartz killed himself just after the 2nd anniversary of his arrest?

Requesting comment on Talk:Aaron Swartz

Should a explanatory comment be (re)inserted in the bio lead saying that Swartz killed himself “just after the second anniversary of his arrest”?  (“On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested.... On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz was found dead....”)

No source has been found yet that uses the date of the anniversary to explain the date of the suicide. According to Swartz’s partner, family, and lawyer, he killed himself 2 days after prosecutors rejected his second request for a plea deal. See, for example, “Legal Case Strained Troubled Activist,” Wall Street Journal.

(This is my first RfC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC) 10:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Activities for Open Access Week

can be collected at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Open Access Week. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 Science sting and 2013 Science sting outcome

These two articles could use some attention from interested editors here. I have proposed the second one for speedy deletion as copyvio, but list it anyway just in case that the CSD is denied. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)