Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/OA

Untitled

Hi all, I am looking at this article Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/OA It needs a lot of help in my opinion. I feel there is too much emphasis on journals which charge authors like PLOS.

Why are we using their icon and not the users who are interested in OA icon? I discussed this in the irc channel with user:Kethrus who seemed to agree with me, but suggested I explain my edits in the talk page. Basically, I feel like this author at the Chronicle: http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2015/05/07/how-to-remove-bias-from-peer-review/ I'll upload one and try to fix the temmplate sometime this week, prob a modification of Heatherawalls File:Wikipedia_Library_owl.svg

So, why not list sources like Worldcat.org Worldcat and hathitrust.org hathitrust? Frederika Eilers (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Frederika Eilers (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Frederika Eilers: Part of our bias, comes from full Libre Open Access definitions, which describe some of these other forms of open access that aren't academically reviewed or aren't CC-BY as not fully open access (and we get flack for that from some OA advocates). I would welcome revisions from anyone with more knowledge of the landscape: no-one on our team is particularly deep in the OA conversation. I would love to see some serious "how to" added, and some advice on how to negotiate the landscape of definitions - and improve this page as an advice space for Open Knowledge contributors to better understand Open Access. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Also whats the planned change to the logo? It would be fascinating to have the owl playing with an open access button (in a way that can't be misinterpreted as derogatory). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Astinson: Thanks for your feedback! I was unaware of Libre Open Access definitions. You are right, just because a service charges authors doesn't mean it's not publically available. I will check out these sources you have provided so i get a more accurate definition before I edit it. I am critical whether these are "peer reviewed" sources. I will probably work on the textual hierarchy and include new links instead of deleting services like PLOS. I like to think I am becoming more informed on matters of cultural landscapes that geographers like Fu-Tuan use. So feel free to ask me if you need a clearer meaning of landscape. Also J. B. Jackson was instrumental in the discipline I have been told -- but characterized as a bit of a wacky character later on. I think he might have been an editor of Places at some point. Thanks for your feedback on the logo too. I am frustrated as a person with the userbox for this group that our views were represented by this domain name. Cheers and Happy editing! --Frederika Eilers (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Unpaywall - open source browser extension (Chrome, Firefox) for finding legal OA versions of non OA articles

This just in(stalled): Moody, Glyn (March 21, 2017). "Unpaywall: The Browser Add-on That Finds (Legal) Free Copies Of Academic Papers You See As You Browse The Web". TechDirt. Retrieved 22 March 2017.

Open source (Python): GitHub - Impactstory/unpaywall

Unpaywall.org - FAQ

Unpaywall.org - LOGO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelgraham (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Brought to you by Impactstory, "funded by the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation." Impactstory.org - About

Looks well worth looking into as an adjunct to the venerable Open Access Button. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Paulscrawl. I think it's an excellent addition. Open Access Button notifies paper authors that their work is in demand and unaccessible, whereas Unpaywall looks for a free-to-read version. I will aim to incorporate both! Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Jake @Ocaasi (WMF):, you're quoted in Nature!

"Another in-development tool, OAbot (Open Access Bot), will search the web for free-to-read versions of papers mentioned in references on Wikipedia pages, says Jake Orlowitz, head of the Wikipedia Library at the Wikimedia Foundation in the San Francisco Bay Area. Once fully launched, references on English Wikipedia pages will be marked with a green unlock icon when a free version of the paper is available. In time, Orlowitz notes, the team aims to use multiple icons to better reflect a paper’s availability — namely, whether it is paywalled, not paywalled but requires registration, free to read but not free to reuse, or free to read as well as reuse."

Chawla, Dalmeet Singh (4 April 2017). "Unpaywall finds free versions of paywalled papers". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2017.21765.

McKenzie, Lindsay (6 April 2017). "How a Browser Extension Could Shake Up Academic Publishing". Chronicle. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Coldewey, Devin (5 April 2017). "Unpaywall scours the web for free versions of scientific papers". Techcrunch. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Bali, Maha (27 March 2017). "Open Access Articles Faster with UnPayWall". The Chronicle of Higher Education. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Moody, Glyn (21 March 2017). "Unpaywall: The Browser Add-on That Finds (Legal) Free Copies Of Academic Papers You See As You Browse The Web". Techdirt. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Buntinx, JP (6 April 2017). "What is Unpaywall?". The Merkle. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Mandelbaum, Ryan (19 April 2017). "This Browser Extension Will Help You Read Paywalled Science Papers for Free". GIZMODO.

Will cite shortly, when I finish some Cochrane account coordinator work and develop now-notable Unpaywall article. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Delist Beall's List - it is dead

Beall's List was pretty controversial whilst it was alive - it had a bad habit of listing perfectly good publishers and journals amongst genuinely bad ones. But now it is dead I'd suggest removing this entry. To help people understand quality research publishing may I instead suggest you point such interested readers to the Think.Check.Submit checklist? http://thinkchecksubmit.org/check/ Metacladistics (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)