[#openaccess 21:52] JOIN: meeting_log [#openaccess 21:52] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 21:56:30] yes? it's probably an incomplete list.. [#openaccess 17.12.06 21:56:51] and some of those, like springer, only offer OA as an option; the bulk of their journals are very much non-open access [#openaccess 17.12.06 21:57:03] http://www.doaj.org/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 21:58:08] The Directory of Open Access Journals claims over 2500 open journals, with 743 searchable. [#openaccess 21:59] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 22:00] JOIN: nojhan [#openaccess 22:00] JOIN: brondel [#openaccess 22:01] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 22:01] JOIN: Derbeth [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:02:10] alright [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:02:24] time to get started :) [#openaccess 22:02] JOIN: Slowking_Man [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:03:08] good morning/day/evening/night everyone [#openaccess 22:03] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:03:33] welcome to the first chat dedicated to exploring the relation between wikimedia, wikis, and the open access movement [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:03:42] hello [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:04:03] there is a live log at: http://scireview.de/wiki/openaccess/channel.log [#openaccess 22:04] MODE: +o Eloquence by: ChanServ [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:05:00] I would suggest that we start with some introductions [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:05:20] just type randomly into the channel -- that's the best way to do it in chat [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:05:29] tell us who you are and why you are coming to this meeting [#openaccess 22:05] JOIN: poli_ [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:05:59] my name is Erik Möller, and I organized this chat because I feel there's a tremendous potential for us to work together, and we need to start somewhere. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:06:00] petermr is Peter Murray-Rust - chemist - responsible for Open Data in Wikipedia and SPARC Open Data list [#openaccess 22:06] Action: *JWSchmidt is John Schmidt, I'm interested in the possibility of peer-reviewed publishing within the Wikiversity project [#openaccess 22:06] Action: *egonw is Blue Obelisk member (like petermr). BO tries to accomplish open data, open source and open standards in chemistry [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:06:45] I am Piotr Kubowicz and come from English Wikibooks [#openaccess 22:07] Action: *egonw ran a open source dictionary on organic chemistry since 1995 [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:07:20] the article Peter is referring to is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Data [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:07:46] BO: see http://www.blueobelisk.org/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:07:53] The SPARC Open Data mailing list is at: http://www.arl.org/sparc/opendata/ [#openaccess 22:07] Action: *yannf is Yann Forget, from France, working in Geneva as free software engineer, working mainly on Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource [#openaccess 22:08] Action: *brassratgirl is Phoebe Ayers; I'm an academic science librarian & I come via the English Wikipedia & WMF [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:08:07] I'm a researcher in computer science, interested by WM & PLoS projects [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:08:15] Chris, English Wikipedia admin, mainly just observing, and trying to get involved in some broader aspects of the Wikimedia community. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:08:30] I'm Sage Ross, a history graduate student. I'm here because I'm a big fan of open access, despite the rather sparse amount of support for it among the humanities. [#openaccess 22:08] Action: *NilsLindenberg is one of the developers of Wikkawiki, a wiki engine, and interested in OA, too. [#openaccess 22:08] Action: *Kipcool is just a curious French wiktionarian /omegawikian [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:09:06] ragesoss, how did you learn about the chat? [#openaccess 22:09] JOIN: Deprifry_ [#openaccess 22:09] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:09:31] Foundation list email. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:09:41] some people here have mentioned projects like wikibooks, wikisource, wikimedia commons - for those who do not know: [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:09:47] the wikimedia foundation operates more than just wikipedia [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:09:54] a full list of its projects can be found here: [#openaccess 22:09] Action: *yannf has also started http://wikilivres.info [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:10:00] I am Brian Brondel, from en Wikibooks [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:10:04] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:10:30] I am gen en.wikipedia and wikispecies admin and graduate chemist [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:10:39] for those from outside wikimedia, please take the time to look at these projects, as the potential to collaborate goes beyond wikipedia alone [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:11:14] but it seems we are a fairly wikimedia-centric group today [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:11:41] eloquence: did you advertise on any non-wmf lists? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:11:59] it was mentioned in peter suber's open access newsletter [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:12:19] I don't think it reached far beyond that .. need to do a better job reaching out next time :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:12:26] ... I saw in in PS's newsletter [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:12:35] the first topic in our agenda is licensing [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:12:37] there was an announcement on a german librarian blog, that's how I know [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:12:58] let me be clear: when I speak about open access, I explicitly do not mean: "you can download it from the web" [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:13:31] I mean: the material is licensed in such a way that I can do something with it. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:13:49] ... agrees with Eloquence [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:13:49] this is true for, e.g., the PLoS journals or BiomedCentral [#openaccess 22:14] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:14:15] these journals are under the Creative Commons CC-BY license, allowing free use as long as attribution is given. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:14:18] That's an important distinction, because a lot of people think of "free" in terms of price. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:14:44] are there any specific questions about wikimedia licensing? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:09] I was wondering about those images on this page: [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:15] I assume wikimedia does not contain "fulltext" publications, but mainly digital objects? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:16] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Open_Access_chat [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:29] the gorilla photos :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:31] how *does* one make proper attribution? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:37] for images that is [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:48] petermr wikisource contians some complete books [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:52] petermr, Wikisource has full text publications [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:15:55] egonw, when you click that image, you should see the description and full size version [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:05] that description contains the authorship information [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:11] Eloquence: ah, ok, good [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:13] egonw add the name of the author to the same bit of paper as you ahve printed the pic on [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:25] in general this is how we do it in wikimedia [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:29] we have the "file description page" [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:33] which contains licensing metadata [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:43] in the case of images, sound files, videos etc. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:16:53] it would be nice to have a list of journals with free content that is compatible with the GFDL [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:17:06] has anyone here never heard of the GFDL? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:17:21] With respect to Wikimedia projects, though, there is very little scholarly journal content that we would *want* to use directly. Open as in "you can download it from the web" (without an institutional subscription) is still a big step forward, especially for citing references in Wikipedias. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:01] ragesoss: often we might just want an image from a journal article [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:06] ragesoss: I think figures and tables are certainly useful. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:21] I am a scientist and interested in textmining and datamining from fulltext as wells as data [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:25] OK , now we're already going into the practical uses of content [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:32] let me first be absolutely clear about one licensing issue [#openaccess 22:18] JOIN: Wikiyouthie375 [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:39] Not haveing to redraw every carbon compound known to man is somewhat handy [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:53] material which is licensed in a way that A) prohibits commercial use, or B) prohibits modification [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:18:57] is not permitted on wikimedia projects. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:19:11] I support this view [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:19:28] CC-BY isn't a bad lisence but it doesn't have the spreading effect that CC-BY-SA has [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:19:29] in essence, wikimedia follows the Free Content Definition: http://freecontentdefinition.org/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:19:33] As regards making derivative works... does anyone have insight into how comfortable researchers not specifically interested in open access going to be with the idea of allowing derivative works? How can we make them more so? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:14] brondel, the best way is probably to not have them think about it at all ;-) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:23] and have the journals worry about licensing policy [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:23] brondel tell them it increase the chnace of other people careing about their work [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:37] brondel: very heterogenous reactions [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:39] eloquence: good point. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:46] thanks Eloquence for free content defintion - will read it [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:20:53] I mean, this is how PLoS does it. their material is "Attribution Required". Authors simply agree to that when they publish [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:21:17] are there open access journals which give authors an explicit selection of licenses to choose from? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:21:34] I agree with the PLoS approach. Too many journals claim to be OA and add unacceptable restrictions [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:21:53] Generaly relying on people not reading the samll print is not good policy [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:21:54] no derivative means no translation for texts [#openaccess 22:22] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:04] and no resizing images [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:19] no derivative means not being able to convert scientific units of measurement [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:20] brondel: I dont think that researchers are specifically interested in open access or not, there is people feeling comfortable with it and peoples feeling not, as in other professions [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:22] translation is a greatly underestimated use, I think [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:26] and one where wikis can truly shine. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:50] And yet, even with added restrictions and compromises for content protection, too few journals are even open access in the narrowest sense. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:22:51] Eloquence, agreed [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:23:14] I had a discussion with a funder about no-derivs - can't say whom - but we were agreed that no-derivs is not acceptable [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:23:14] yannf, do we have new translation tools in mediawiki these days? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:23:46] Eloquence, in Wikisource we have side by side display of different languages [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:23:56] have the problems with GFDL vs. CC been ironed out? if not, CC may not be much better than free download. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:23:59] yannf, can you dig up an example of that? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:24:02] but we barely started using it [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:24:17] some people might balk at the idea of freely allowing commercial uses, particularly if there are medical implications [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:24:33] Science Commons is also looking at licenses other than the standard CC ones [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:24:35] algae, I will not say much but there _are_ ongoing discussions about gfdl/cc-by-sa interoperability [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:24:49] please be patient -- we should know more soon. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:25:09] Eloquence: you mean "GFDL-wiki" license? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:25:31] that is related, yes. to explain the situation: [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:25:42] GFDL and CC-BY-SA (creative commons) are not directly compatible for text [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:25:43] some publishers want to forbid commercial because it stops other publishers making collections and anthologies, etc. But it's wider than that [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:25:48] for images, it does not matter [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:25:59] you can combine a CC-BY-SA image with a GFDL text. or indeed any freely licensed image. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:26:31] you could even legally combine a CC-BY-NC (non-commercial only) image with a GFDL text, but Wikimedia does not permit that as a policy matter. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:26:36] petermr NC lisences have so many legal issues that they effectively broken [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:26:52] when you're mixing text under one license with text under another license, you start getting into trouble. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:26:53] simple example of French and English translation side by side: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Correspondances?match=en [#openaccess 22:26] JOIN: Wikiyouthie235 [#openaccess 22:27] JOIN: Wikiyouthie235 [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:27:14] hmz, someone seems to be having connection troubles [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:27:18] eloquence: why is it possible to combine cc-by-nc and GFDL? [#openaccess 22:27] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:27:41] brondel, the GFDL contains an "aggregation" clause [#openaccess 22:27] JOIN: Anthere3 [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:27:54] legality is not the only issue. publishers have control of the distribution and can cut you off. I do not have time to debate legal issues so need a clear an open license [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:27:57] this permits separate and independent works to be combined [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:28:05] brondel baisicaly you treat them as seperate legal works [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:28:06] I'll have to look into that. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:28:12] combining a text with an image under a different license is fine [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:28:34] OK, I'll try to help our friend with connection trouble. In the meantime, let's move on to the next topic: [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:28:48] which stuff is there that we can actually use in wikimedia? :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:28:51] let's brainstorm [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:29:02] what examples of open access materials can you think of that we can make active use of? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:29:10] images of various types obviously [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:29:25] papers to wikisource [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:29:55] may be posible to use the data to bot devlop wikispecies [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:30:04] in citing sources, I almost always select open access journal articles over non-open [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:30:20] JWSchmidt: that's a good idea. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:30:23] build into some of our higher level wikibooks [#openaccess 22:30] JOIN: TestUser5003 [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:30:37] testing this [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:30:51] gen: could you clarify what you mean by that? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:30:53] is wikispecies a really good example ? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:31:07] with wikibooks there is an issue with avoiding original research [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:31:15] we can mine data out of any open chemistry source including journals, pubmed abstracts, pubchem etc. Whether we want to ... [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:31:24] wikispecies does not seems to be a living project with a sufficient editorial background... [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:31:43] Derbeth if it has been published elsewhere it isn't OR [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:31:57] nojhan it gets a fair number of edits [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:32:10] new scientific findings are original research in most times [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:07] Derbeth ony if they have not been previously published [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:08] but I see a possibility to use some parts from Open Access publications that talk about existing knowledge [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:16] just as a point of information, I should note that by now some wikis support more richly structured data than currently used in wikimedia projects [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:21] another nice feature is online proofreading; http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Brundtland_en-000.png [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:40] there is a semantic mediawiki extension to mediawiki that is very interesting: http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Semantic_MediaWiki [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:46] I have had omme difficulty to get in as it is not usual for me [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:33:50] (mediawiki is the software used by wikimedia projects) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:34:14] geniice_: ok, but published in a reliable source; even publications in renown journals may contradict themselves [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:34:32] and there is OmegaWiki.org , a structured thesaurus/ontology built on top of mediawiki (disclaimer: I'm managing the development of the project) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:34:39] Derbeth this has never stoped us in the past [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:35:21] ok [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:35:27] ok, but Wikibooks is generally about teaching old things than showing new theories; of course new papers may include a new interesting way of presenting old things [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:35:28] I think one of the most immediate uses that comes to mind [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:35:38] is trying to get images and other media files into our media archive, wikimedia commons [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:36:01] test gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:36:05] many scientific articles are well illustrated, and many wikipedia articles are poorly illustrated [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:36:10] Gaiapolis, we can read you now :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:36:11] yes, I also think that it's the easiest way to profit from Open Access [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:36:23] Derbeth plently of textbooks include a breaking research chapter [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:36:55] with the Flickr.com photo hosting site, we have a collaborative review project where wikimedians select photos that are then uploaded to commons [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:01] It might be overkill, but we could use a bot to pull from open access journals into commons. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:12] and Mediawiki now supports Djvu file format: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Drei_Register_Arithmetischer_ahnfeng_zur_Practic.djvu?page=10 [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:19] This would promote more use of journal images. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:22] Flickr photo review process: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:36] brondel, this is essentially what we do with flickr [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:40] djvu? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:37:57] brondel no just dumpping images onto commons atchives nothing [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:11] geniice_, reviewing, then uploading, then systematically adding [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:13] oh, nevermind, see the description [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:16] Probably right :-/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:17] Derbeth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djvu [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:37] Eloquence that works somewhat better [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:52] [FWIW Henry Rzepa has applied the Semantic Wiki to chemistry - it's hard work but definitely a useful way to go] [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:58] does the FlickLickr project promote categorization ? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:38:58] is anyone here already scouring open access journals for relevant photos or illustrations? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:08] nojhan, definitely [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:11] What is Semantic Wiki? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:25] ok [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:30] nojhan, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flickrlickr.png => for each images, users have to identify the correct wikimedia commons categories [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:49] Gaiapolis, you don't have to type your name :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:52] Eloquence: scientific article does not really have better encyclopedic illustrations [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:39:56] heh we need a free pic of the Pitch drop experiment [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:08] except for hard-to-get datas [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:11] nojhan: anything is better than nothing. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:15] indeed [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:26] nojhan: often they have rather illustrative ones... at least in life sciences [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:32] indeed² [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:39] I wonder if [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration]] has any interest in making use of open access journal illustrations [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:40:58] well, wikipedia has the advantage of being truly updated in realtime, so we can summarize recent scientific findings as they are published [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:41:08] and such summaries can often include illustrations. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:41:17] PLoS does excellent summaries of their papers [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:41:24] which may also be useful to us. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:41:41] JWSchmidt, I'm sure they do [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:01] here's another radical idea [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:16] put every open access paper that is under a free license on wikisource [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:29] use the wiki to annotate, categorize, translate [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:34] thoughts? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:35] Other thing about open acess is that potentialy they could use our stuff [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:47] every one? gosh [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:48] Eloquence, you're talking about building a research database [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:52] that's a whole new project [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:42:55] Eloquence non gfdl on wikisource? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:03] I don't think we should be in the business of trying to publish breaking research. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:03] eloquence: duplication of effort, and a *lot* of effort. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:04] perhaps we should make a quick selection at the beginning? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:05] Eloquence: as long as that doesn't mean scientists are less likely to publish Open Access... [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:14] I wonder how many open access journals struggle to get adequate hosting [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:28] Derbeth, we don't have the manpower to do it now, even with automated tools [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:40] brassratgirl, what speaks against it? it would have to be material that has already been published somewhere else [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:42] its more a question of durability [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:43:50] research happens in a context. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:44:05] without that wider context, we're picking and choosing what to reprint [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:44:21] (we have to pick and choose, anyway) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:44:35] which means potentially a very biased picture of what is going on in any given field of research [#openaccess 22:44] JOIN: CyrilB [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:44:46] brassratgirl, well, any single journal is likely to give you a similarly biased picture [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:44:56] at least this would be a cross-journal effort [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:45:00] That's very true. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:45:08] brassratgirl: this is the case for all the informations containend in all the WM projects [#openaccess 22:45] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:45:39] there is always a systemtic bias of selection .. we have more computer science articles than about sociology [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:45:41] but it seems better to coordinate with the people who are already working on the problem, rather than trying to start up a research directory ourselves. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:45:55] You say "already published," but what does that really mean? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:02] brassratgirl, coordination is what we're here for :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:02] brassrat: agreed. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:03] PLOS has an editorial board that reviews papers. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:22] I can't say that definitively for every journal in the directory of OA journals. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:25] brassratgirl, wikisource doesn't accept original publication [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:30] problem is, we'd be duplicating interfaces for authors and the public. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:39] WM will not substitute to a journal, but the durability of the information can be a good reason to upload the papers on the WM servers [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:52] redundancy is good to keep stuff alive, but it sucks for consistency. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:56] when articles are truly OA and re-usable and when search engines support full semantics then it doesn't really need additional effort to put the articles in t WM. It will be more use to annnotate them and their components [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:46:57] yannf: I know .. I'm just pointing out that standards for original publication vary between sources. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:47:06] there is several advantages for that (categorization, web search, etc.) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:47:33] is it worth using wikisource to translate (selected) open access papers? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:47:40] algae: scientifics papers are not supposed to be modified once published [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:47:47] Indexing articles is a BIG problem. it's not something to enter into lightly, and I don't know if it's worth putting our resources into. That's all. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:47:57] eloquence: I would think so. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:48:05] are open access papers in need of translation or is English becoming so dominant in sciences that we should not worry about translating papers? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:48:08] Eloquence, yes, for translation, it would be very useful [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:48:28] it depends of what you want to do with the papers [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:48:30] nojhan: eloquence said "use the wiki to annotate, categorize, translate" [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:48:54] so do you read the original or the annotated wiki version? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:49:02] perhaps it's more important to translate summaries than the full text of the papers [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:49:15] and do authors like potentially botched translations? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:49:31] I think that english is so dominant in science that it should not be really importat to translate something else than the abstract [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:49:35] would you like some potentially botched fries with that? :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:50:06] scientists tend to care a lot about integrity of their work. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:50:16] quality assurance in anything we're doing is a whole topic in its own right [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:50:23] that goes for translation as much as use in encyclopedia articles etc. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:50:29] algae: Personally, I'd rather read in English, even if the translation is so-so. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:50:39] more than is good for them, presumably. some open access definitions prohibit derivates for this reason. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:50:44] algae: And that goes double if I don't know the language. :-) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:51:44] I think we should dare to experiment. unfortunately we don't have anyone representing a journal here today, I think [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:52:12] now one thing that every open access journal _should_ have, and many already do, is RSS feeds [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:52:25] Eloquence: I'm all for it if we talk to journals, rather than taking unilateral steps just because we can. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:52:36] algae, absolutely [#openaccess 22:52] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:52:55] though with images taking "unilateral" steps (i.e. taking and using) is hopefully less problematic [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:01] reproducing archives is different from reproducing current work, as well [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:11] remember that PLOS and the like are mostly surving on startup funding [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:15] is anyone aware of additional feeds and APIs to open access materials? anything that could be used for monitoring e.g. published media files? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:15] algae everything is stored in history so integrity of the work should not be a problem [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:16] they don't have a great revenue model [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:21] Eloquence: agreed, I meant the article mirroring. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:53:34] and what revenue they are getting is based on their reputation of publishing good work [#openaccess 22:53] JOIN: Gaiapolis [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:54:09] the value associated with being the original and sole publisher of some important piece of research is really important to journals. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:54:33] brassratgirl, if they want to be the _sole_ publisher they shouldn't be using free licenses in the first place :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:54:44] geniice_: did you ever try that argument with editors owning a WP article? scientists are even less likely to buy that :-) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:55:05] algae I haven't needed to yet [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:55:22] remember that journals are selling their OA status mainly based on the public being able to access the work; not on other people being able to reproduce the work. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:55:27] the rhetoric of " [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:55:27] geniice_: you must be new here (TM) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:55:38] don't try to generalize what "scientists" think :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:55:45] algae comeing up to two years of adminship [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:56:02] geniice_: I know. kidding. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:56:16] sorry, the rhetoric of "other people being able to reproduce us" rarely shows up in the promotional materials used by OA journals; it's a new line of thinking. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:56:29] *promotion to scientists and librarians, that is. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:56:46] brassratgirl, time to think about applications then :) I think any added value we can demonstrate will actually strengthen the open access argument and movement. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:57:06] right. the question I would ask is what makes for good added value, and to whom. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:57:15] translations? definitely. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:57:21] what we _can_ offer is technology. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:57:29] brassratgirl, for PLoS in particular I don't think cross-publishing would affect their business model at all [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:57:29] value to the public and other researchers. dunno about other things. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:57:46] we are more advanced in some regards than the journals. so cooperation might be possible. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:58:09] well, their business model depends on authors paying author fees. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:58:10] I agree that demostration of the re-use of content from PLoS, BMC etc. would be seen as valuable [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:58:31] but OA journals might fear being associated with an encyclopedia anyone can edit. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:58:52] brassratgirl, exactly. as long as we're not in the business of _reviewing and originally publishing_ papers, but only reproducing and adding value to what has already been published, I do not see it as a competitive situation at all. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:58:54] I have talked with people running these journals. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:59:03] algae just give them our unique views numbers that keeps most people quite [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:59:34] geniice_: that could make a good argument. good point. [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:59:53] is this an angle we can sell to the journals? [#openaccess 17.12.06 22:59:54] algae: yes, definitely. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:05] algae, 2007 will likely be the year in which wikimedia foundation truly focuses on quality assurance throughout its projects [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:06] the masses being able to edit is *not* a selling point for many publishers. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:14] as an example if we extracted and indexed all the molecules published in BMC/Beilstein New Journal I suspect everyone involved would be pleased. (It would be a substantial effort, but we have much of the technology) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:22] i.e. including new functionality for identifying reviewed content [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:34] Eloquence: i'm not downtalking WP, it's about public perception. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:36] algae hmm "wikipedia is a uniquely powerful vector with which to spread knowlage" could work [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:40] petermr: open source structure searching would be nice too, eh? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:42] brassratgirl: That's true, but Wikipedia is hip and trendy. I think that's a selling point. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:53] depends on who you talk to. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:53] OA journals are trying to become respectable. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:58] I generally encounter very polarized reactions [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:00:59] I suspect that Wikipedia chemicals are of at least as high quality as many other sources [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:09] geniice_, agreed with that [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:14] some people really hate wikis, and probably always will, while others understand how they work and are happy to collaborate. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:21] it's not just about current OA journals, as well; it's also about convincing other journals they should go OA. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:31] we have open source structure/substructure searching - but it does require a server and commitment. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:43] and that's a very contentious discussion. Journals are very hesitant, for many reasons. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:43] petermr yes and no. A bit ah narrow so if you go outside the basic stuff there isn't much coverage [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:01:51] petermr: yes, a Beilstein JOS will InChI's for each recognized molecule in example code : openbabel.sf.net [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:02:35] algae define successful [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:02:37] algae: for a publisher that would mean... higher citation counts [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:02:48] for that, more readers is important [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:02:49] it allows you to enter part of a molecule and search for similar molecules [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:02:50] algae: right, and there's no clear answer I can see for simple reproduction on wikisource, or even annotation by people who may or may not know what they're talking about. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:02:56] geniice_: not going broke. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:03:06] being able to hire good editors. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:03:08] sorry to play devil's advocate, but I see a *lot* of hesitation out there in the publishing world re: OA [#openaccess 23:03] JOIN: hill [#openaccess 23:03] JOIN: sundance [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:03:32] brassratgirl: me too [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:03:34] algae not much we can do there might be able to get them better authors [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:03:35] hello [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:04:02] hello [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:04:04] brassratgirl: the most interesting development is in particle physics where CERN is leaning on the journals to go OA. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:04:12] brassratgirl, absolutely. but there's a tremendous amount of material that is open access _right now_ and which we can very much use as we wish. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:04:13] I thought I was early to the party... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:04:46] let's try to get some specific commitments of actually doing something :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:04:54] brassratgirl: The prestigious journals are certainly going to be cautious, but they're going to find something that works... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:05] algae: that along with the US & UK governments leaning on their funded projects. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:19] And everyone hopes that we'll see plenty of openness, but we have to see what develops. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:19] I want each one of you to state an area you'd like to work on [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:22] brondel: maybe. they don't have a lot of incentive to, necessarily. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:27] I agree we should suggest practical things... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:27] brassratgirl: to convince publishers, we need to show them how OA allows new innovation in publishing... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:28] e.g. translation, annotation, illustrations, structured data, ... [#openaccess 23:05] JOIN: Dami_huwiki [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:40] brassratgirl: we need to throw in things they can only dream about [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:48] I think egonw and I will have similar views so count us as two [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:05:51] each one of you: what do you, personally, want to work on? we can then try to define workgroups and more specific action. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:06:14] :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:06:21] egonw: you cannot convince publishers who enjoy monopoly rents. you have to support OA journals and convince authors. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:06:26] egonw: integrate the data and semantics on www.woc.science.ru.nl into wikipedia [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:06:30] eh the standard looking for free iamges to replace ones claimed under "fair use" [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:06:56] algae: yes, convince the authors by powerfull new technologies (we already have) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:06:59] eloquence, we may need more discussion to come up with what we actually want to happen. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:11] eloquence: can we lay out what needs to be done? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:20] egonw I think conviceing the authors through size of readership would be a better tack [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:24] in chemistry we can do the following: distribute open technology for exatrcting chemistry from free text; open technology for extracting chemistry from crystal structures (these are largely open); the main sources of open are PUBMED, OA journals and free content associated with journals (often Open data even if the text is closed) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:53] I am not sure we can set up a server, but we can help those that do; [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:57] geniice_: correct, but I think OA journals are already attracting a lot of readers... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:58] my particular interest is not scientific journals, but the arguments are probably the same [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:07:59] for a science journalism project at Wikiversity, it would probably make sense to focus on open access journal articles [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:08:09] the extraction of chemistry has to be robotic [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:08:35] egonw ho0w many million. We have about 5.7 million from france alone [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:08:41] brondel, one area that everyone seems to agree makes sense is images and illustrations. I hope we can form a workgroup specifically dedicated to that. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:08:59] oh yes has wikinews been mentioned yet> [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:09:06] not specifically. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:09:41] reaching new readers, a new audience [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:09:58] petermr: is there a resource somewhere describing your proposal in more detail? (resources, code that needs to be written, samples) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:10:09] imo that's the main argument to develop [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:10:16] Sorry I'm late, so this may have come up: it seems to me that we could make inroads into the academic community using cross-project materials with wikiversity and commons to create useful slide shows for scientific topics (sorry also for the nonsequitor) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:10:49] SB_Johnny, could you give a concrete example? [#openaccess 23:10] JOIN: Mokurai [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:11:15] sure: say I'm teaching a class on weeds and weed control. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:11:35] SB_Johnny: with wikiversity ? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:11:41] I can start a project on wikiversity about how best to learn this [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:11:53] there are a number of examples, NMR ShiftDB (15, 000 spectra), WWMM (250, 000 molecules in repository) and we shall shortly publish a site with crystallography [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:00] and then create slideahows on commons [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:02] taht should be an intersting step towards academic community, indeed [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:19] well, I intend to do this in fall 2007 [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:38] at a "brick and mortar" university [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:54] just like handbooks [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:58] on wikibooks [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:12:58] http://nmrshiftdb.cubic.uni-koeln.de/nmrshiftdb [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:02] I think its related [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:10] it would also involve wikibooks and wikipedia, but the details are unimportant [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:23] OK, I've started http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Open_Access_chat/Workgroups [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:26] http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/724 [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:45] thanks petermr [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:45] so far I can see 3 workgroups: media monitoring, chemical data, and teaching materials [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:13:50] the point is to approach professors who are teaching, and show them how well we can make their lives easier [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:11] I agree that mixing OA and WM projects to bring educational contents to academic teachers is a good way to make the researcher community involved [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:21] SB_Johnny: yes, figuring out what the audience for these things are is important [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:23] I think it would also make sense to have a specific workgroup dedicated to outreach, i.e. contacting open access journals and identifying further areas of collaboration [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:25] (petermr: nmrshiftdb has almost 23k spectra now) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:31] chemistry is an excellent subject but low percentage of Wikifriends. However the ones that are are very good [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:48] petermr: does this fit any of the existing wikimedia projects? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:55] sorry, egon! I thought it had a different number on the page [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:55] the audience isn't really the world at large; it's probably researchers, teachers and students in any given subject. So what would help them? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:14:56] honestly, I think it's just a matter of phone calls and personal talks [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:18] we all have old professors we could "sell" wikimedia to [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:22] and what about asking to OA to publish books made on WM ? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:36] algae: don't know - haven't really used wikimedia except for images for WP [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:39] SB_Johnny: my experience has been that no one likes to use the prepackaged slides that come with textbooks... other types of materials, on the other hand, might generate more interest. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:41] nojhan, publish books? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:45] well, a matter of phone calls and knowing what we want to do :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:48] algae: likely... there is working in chem data already done, but I like the idea of mining OA chem literature for images [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:55] I'm Ed Cherlin, working on One Laptop Per Child, Free software and textbooks, and related subjects. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:15:58] yeah, I mean, they made an true editorial work [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:06] hello Ed :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:09] and we have a great collaborative tool [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:18] brondel: that's the beauty of the wiki... they don't have to use it as they found it [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:25] There was a recent announcement of a large number of Indian journals going to free online distribution to schools. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:27] focus in chem data has been sofar on templates, getting InChI's in (unique chem identifier) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:40] egonw: I agree if we have enough volunteers to annotate them (can't be automated) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:48] Q: what is wp going to do wrt semantic relations between items? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:16:51] SB: That's a good point. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:17:04] for example, I'm talking with other researchers for writing and handbook for students [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:17:11] egonw, still unclear. semantic mediawiki deployment will hopefully be discussed soon [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:17:24] but I'm looking for a way to easily publish a paper version [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:17:30] One of my projects is linking schools in developed and developing countries. I'm hoping to recruit volunteers at both ends to write and annotate materials. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:17:39] nojhan: I think a more realistic goal at this point is to have printouts of GFDL stuff become a "standard" in university classrooms. We can worry about printing presses later [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:17:49] Eloquence: the OA journals outreach idea has potential, but we would have to come up with an offer they can't refuse. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:18:08] SB_Johnny: my problem is that students needs a paper version [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:18:14] in the german Wikibooks we Use pdf's [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:18:42] We need better Free PDF tools, so that students can easily annotate them. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:18:47] Mokurai, i am interested by that [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:18:49] (but anyway, there is websites selling paper printing for books, that's not a great problem) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:18:56] Openoffice [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:19:03] nojhan: the instructor can print out a packet... if formatted correctly it's as good as any textbook, if not better. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:19:04] point of information: I have located funding for developing PDF support for MediaWiki. It's going to happen soon. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:19:15] Mokurai: or just a website transcribing a wikipage into pdf? :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:19:17] has a good one [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:19:42] Eloquence: really? please expand. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:19:45] there are already good wiki-pdf solutions, but not around mediawiki [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:00] Eloquence, online creation of Djvu files would be nice too ;) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:16] e.g. http://www.wikipublisher.org/ is pretty cool [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:23] Eloquence, like http://any2djvu.djvuzone.org/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:32] Eloquence: would that also include the possibility to combine multiple pages to one pdf? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:44] effeietsanders, this is the minimum set of functionality :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:45] as well as online OCR server [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:20:57] hopefully we'll be able to go a little beyond that, make a nice gui etc. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:21:00] SB_Johnny: indeed, but perhaps we could benefit from editors for doing all the stuff that we _can_ but _don't_want_ to do [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:21:01] effeietsanders: The problem is not in creating PDFs, but in editing them. Acrobat has notes, comments, ways to edit text and graphics. Linux tools such as Ghostscript and xpdf are only readers. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:21:37] Mokurai: i was mostly thinking about creating the stuff onwiki, and then only needing to make a pdf out of it [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:21:45] effeietsanders: Eloquence: There are tools for breaking PDFs into separate pages, and for combining pages. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:21:48] Mokurai: you won't have to alter the pdf then [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:21:53] Mokurai, I don't think PDFs are really suitable for editing. Offline editing of wikis is more interesting. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:22:04] ummm... why do we want to edit PDFs? PDF does not generally have much to offer wrt to specific annotation other than free text [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:22:36] the only advantage could be adding pagenumbers and stuff. But you could include that too in the creation process [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:22:40] point of information: socialtext has recently debuted offline editing capabilities in their wiki software: http://www.socialtext.com/node/152 [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:22:40] Eloquence: For content in Wikis, definitely edit the Wiki and regenerate the PDF. For textbooks provided as PDFs, annotation is essential. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:22:45] I would rather see semantic content (XML) than PDFs [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:23:01] nojhan: we can but won't... more please? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:23:04] page numbers, indexes, page setting, cover, and so on [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:23:30] egonw: I'm currently marking up Adam Smith with references to later research and noting outright errors (notably the labor theory of value). [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:23:44] we've got lots of smart people around who can build bots for that [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:23:55] petermr, http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/wiki2xml/w2x.php is a very rudimentary wiki2xml converter that can then convert to ODT, DocBook and PDF [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:24:07] unfortunately it's still very buggy [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:24:14] SB_Johnny: for example, I can build a whole book (I've also done it) but I would prefer that someone do all the "text to paper" stuff [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:24:31] well i am used to being an early adopter :-) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:25:15] for example, correcting page numbering and figures placement s boring [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:25:24] but this is moving a bit away from the core topic of open access journals and content. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:25:36] There is a discussion of Open Access on the One Laptop Per Child Wiki, http://wiki.laptop.org/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:25:54] I'd appreciate help with the attempt to define concrete open access related workgroups: [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:25:57] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Open_Access_chat/Workgroups [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:26:01] so, my question was "could we benefit from the OA journals experience ?" [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:26:08] Eloquence: and textbooks and datasets. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:26:15] if you feel that new groups or needed, or would like to join one of these, please add yourself. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:26:20] nojan: I think that just involves making sure that the "printing department" at the university knows how to handle wiki documents. We could easily write a how-to book on that and recommend it to our professorial "clients". And I'd imagine that would work just as well for Kinko's, etc. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:27:20] SB_Johnny: perhaps... in my school, the "printing departement" does only now MS-Words, and does not want to learn something else :/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:27:29] (sorry: "Kinko's is a US company that has printing/copying centers down the street from most US universities) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:27:57] nojhan: sounds familiar [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:28:01] nojan: they can (and should, and hopefully will) learn [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:28:10] indeed [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:28:25] One of the questions posed in the invitation was, Wikimedia and a position about "Open Access to cultural heritage". One Laptop Per Child makes that question even more important. Will we teach the people of these cultures how to both share and protect their cultural IP, or will we leave them to the mercies of the media conglomerates? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:28:30] SB_Johnny: people try to do as less as possible, so want to learn as less as possible [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:28:42] SB_Johnny: not everybody is eager to learn new things :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:28:48] ...and it shouldn't be hard to find at least one enthusiastic wikimedian student to help make the transistion [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:29:06] even if you make it easy for them [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:29:32] one another point where OA professional can be intersting is from the documentalist perspective (puttiing a book in libraries databases, for example) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:29:42] Mokurai: right now, we're at their mercy ourselves. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:06] ok, let's get back to the question of workgroups at the end [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:09] petermr: please read that workgroup wiki page about chem data [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:23] I think we've discussed a lot of potential uses of OA content throughout the projects [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:29] one other question: [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:29] Eloquence: I added an idea for chem data workgroup in the wiki [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:44] how can we get _scientists_ involved in the wikimedia projects directly? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:30:47] Mokurai: in the case you are imagining *we* will be the cultural conglomerate. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:07] are scientists already associated with OA more likely to support WM projects? how do we reach out to them? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:13] ...And we'll need to broaden our own minds as we strive to broaden theirs [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:17] I think so [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:17] egonw: could you please link from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Open_Access_chat/Workgroups to the relevant workgroup page? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:30] but WM are a step farther than OA from the content perspecive [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:32] effeietsanders: yes, mom [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:34] egonw: i might be interested too, some time maybe [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:31:46] algae: I heard Morgan Freeman on the radio yesterday giving away his next movie,10 Items or Less. It will be available for free download two weeks after the theatrical release. All is not yet lost. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:32:05] eloquence: focus on reliability, verification, and preventing trolling & vandalism; same steps as getting any sort of expert contributor involved. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:32:09] Eloquence: you can get scientists only invloved if you make work easier for them [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:32:20] or of a better quality [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:32:32] most scientists are short on time and energy for brand-new initiatives; that's pretty much a given. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:32:34] Eloquence: well for that purpuse going over the OA journal staff might actually be a good idea. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:32:58] algae, what do you mean? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:07] brassratgirl, we can never truly prevent trolling [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:20] effeietsanders: it has to be both [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:30] Eloquence: I know that; I'm reporting back on the feedback I've gotten from my clients (scientists) :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:33] easier and better [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:41] the problem with scientist is not much the Open Access point, but the reliability one, in my experience [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:51] scientists are willing to spread their work [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:33:59] Eloquence: I think we do need a transition from focus on quantity to focus on quality. This is largely already happening. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:05] willing to let it be modified is another problem [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:11] authors who already publish in OA journals tend to have a good opinion of those journals. an association WP/OA journal is more likely to make WP look better than the journal worse. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:20] here's an idea: if we had citation tracking, we could invite scientists to verify how their work is being cited in wikipedia. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:21] I'm not sure [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:39] eloquence: could you expand on that? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:41] You can get Morgan Freeman's movie 10 Items or Less for free from http://www.clickstar.com/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:34:48] brassratgirl: you only need a few mad scientists - like the ones in this chat... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:01] Eloquence: most won't be willing to do it [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:01] heh. can we get ISI to recognize our citations? :-) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:07] petermr: brassratgirl: You need graduate students. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:11] brondel, well, we already cite a lot of scientific papers, OA and not OA. if we kept track of those citations in a more machine-readable fashion, we could invite scientists to look directly at the articles where their paper is being cited. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:12] Eloquence: the "citation game" is something we should avoid, IMO [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:14] Eloquence: it costs time, and gives them very little [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:31] SB_Johnny, what do you mean with "the citation game"? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:49] SB_Johnny: especially given that wikipedia is "anyone can edit", and citing yourself is kosher. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:35:59] Science teaching: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Computer_Architecture_Lab - a course at the Vienna University of Technology. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:16] Eloquence: scientists can be judged on the number of citations of their papers [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:19] I agree with Elo - WP is a great place to link to relevant papers. But there will be arbitrary selection [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:24] Eloquence: if i'm thinking of the scientists in chemistry, i see that they still prefer doing experiements over doing stuff with the computer [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:29] the citation game is like google bombing, but on paper. it's a long-standing tradition that we should not follow. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:35] Eloquence: especially because they lack time anyways [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:41] Eloquence: so that their is a race to citations [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:36:55] sure. but in this case we'd only be pointing out the citations of their own work. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:02] i second SB_Johnny there. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:05] if they self-cite, they don't learn anything they don't already know. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:16] all: this is an opportunity to start to change people's ways. We don't have to win all of them at once. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:39] petermr: i think you need a significant part of them to make it work [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:42] Eloquence: but they get a higher rank [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:45] what value we attach to a citation in wikipedia is completely up to us [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:37:52] I understand what you're saying, but that's not a game that will benefit us, because we will never recieve "reciprocal citations", because we are wikis [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:38:11] effeietsanders: can't find it :( [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:38:18] perhaps the easiest way to show to scientists that WM projects can lead to great work is to publish some articles in an OA journal [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:38:32] SB_Johnny, well, the idea is that they'd take a look at the actual article and edit it, or tell us whether the citation is used correctly. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:38:46] egonw: i couldnt either, so that was why i was asking you to link it :P [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:38:49] nojhan, what kind of articles? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:06] effeietsanders: I've spoken with those people... they made a 'template' for chem data for compounds... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:06] well, that's fine, but there's nothing in it for them [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:20] Eloquence: good articles showing asynthesis on a scientific subject [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:27] SB_Johnny, being cited correctly will be enough reward for many. believe me, we get enough complaints as it is :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:30] from an historical perspective, why not [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:31] effeietsanders: but template does not seem to be the right word... petermr, do you remember what that box on the right is called? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:44] :D agreed [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:54] Eloquence: i think that will not be true. the reward is too little for the effords [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:39:55] egonw: what box on where? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:06] ah - on WP [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:07] on chem compound pages... [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:09] not a scientific article, not published as a paper, but just an introtuctive article [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:11] right, sorry [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:15] but the point is to get our stuff used, not just read by academics [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:27] egonw: taxobox? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:43] egonw: sorry, no. somthing like compoundBox [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:50] I think that the first step to get scientists involved is to show that our articles are goods [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:40:55] effeietsanders, I think you might be underestimating how significant WP in particular already is, and how significant it will be in years and decades to come [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:00] that is the first questions they always ask me [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:13] nojhan, JWSchmidt is interested in publishing papers through the wiki process [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:24] nojhan, you might want to talk to him about a specific project to work on .. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:25] Eloquence: dont forget we're talking about scientists. they live in an own world [#openaccess : 23:41] PART: Dami_huwiki [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:43] Re; tracking citations; it could actually be of benefit to us, in a meta way: see what kind of citations we have, and how they can be made better on a large scale [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:43] Eloquence: I already publish [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:58] it's already pretty well known that OA publishing increases your citation rate, as an author [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:41:58] Eloquence: the scientists who publish a lot and a lot important stuff, wont have time for this childish playing (as they see it) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:05] SB_Johnny, what are you publishing? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:06] effeietsanders, petermr: Chembox, it seems [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:17] Eloquence: why not, indeed [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:37] effeietsanders, Wikipedia Academy in Germany showed a more mixed reaction [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:44] Custom garden books... long story that's not at all interesting [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:49] effeietsanders, I think we sohuld be careful not to make a priori assumptions about how people will react to us [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:42:51] brassratgirl: and yet, most authors aren't flocking to OA journals. this is going to be a slooooow process. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:43:05] Eloquence: of course i am all from the chemistry, so my view is one-sided probably [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:43:22] algae: yup. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:43:31] But I'm planning on doing printouts through the university system when I teach about weeds [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:43:33] Eloquence: i just try to explain it would be wise to find a more successfull way to reward them somehow [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:43:36] effe: I think you're probably right, for most academic disciplines [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:06] Eloquence: you need to be able to show them they benefit from it, and as you explain it, i dont see that yet [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:07] wikis aren't the most rewarding systems :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:13] I agree with Elo - we shouldn't assume negative reactions. Yes, mainstream chemistry will rubbish us, but they will be proved wrong. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:28] Eloquence: Agreed, but talking to scientists tends to support such pessimistic opinions. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:34] I'm more concerned about not wanting to spam people [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:41] the question is how to make a good first contact [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:42] anyway, I'd argue citations in wp, like any encyclopedia, should be to the best work on a topic, not nec. the most current work; so it doesn't have a whole lot to do with what we're talking about here. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:44:59] everyone: I think "wooing" academics with citations isn't a good idea. We should be wooing with content... content is what we're good at. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:45:26] SB_Johnny, what content is wooworthy? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:45:35] I have predicted publicly that in 5 years time WP chemicals will be the primary reference for most chemist's. (I didn'y differentiate between WP and WM. Also I know that 5 years is an overestimate) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:45:40] Are you kidding? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:45:47] it is not clear that most older working scientists are right for open access, the real impact of open access is probably at the margins, new scientists just getting started, people who are familiar with open publishing and not locked into older journals [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:45:59] I'd take wikipedia over oxford any day [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:46:02] SB_Johnny, what is specifically interesting to scientists, and how can we make them aware of it? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:46:22] petermr: well, if you want that to happen, you'll need NMR, IR, UV spectra and stuff like that :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:46:32] thinking and doing something else, brb [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:46:50] effe: yes, but that's technically do-able now [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:46:59] petermr: and i don't know whether we have the right infrastructure for that atm [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:47:50] is anyone aware of wikis being used directly by OA publishers? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:47:53] internally or openly? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:47:57] there are some very good student projects for adding reviewed quality data to the literature. If 5% or all chemistry courses were to have a WP project we'd solve it in a year. People are laredy starting to thnk this way [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:48:02] to get that you'll need to get more scientists involved, and to do that, well, your in your circle :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:48:48] effe: yes, and we are. Slowly. But it will come. For every undergrdaute who uses WP, it makes it easier to convince people to contribute, just a little [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:07] or you need to slice the task in a way that non-chemists can do it. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:21] of course we are growing. I'm trying to think of ways to support the growth [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:32] i suspect most content in WP is written not by experts in the field (even though often experts in other fields) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:37] petermr: but actually the wikipedia rules forbid atm the publishing of spectra [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:38] if we said "if you use 10 chemical enties in WP, please contribute one" and if 5% of people actually did, we'd be there [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:46] petermr: no original research [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:49:59] effe: why? is this technical or legal [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:50:27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:50:28] effe: this isn't research - it's transcribing known content [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:50:39] well, the spectra being taken are original research kinda [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:50:41] one of the core policies of the English Wikipedia [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:50:58] interestingly enough, the project JWSchmidt mentioned, Wikiversity (also a Wikimedia project), permits original research. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:51:04] although you're not the first one probably, it is research [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:51:16] Eloquence, and most (all ?) languages Wikipedias [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:51:25] Wikiversity is still in the very early stages but of course potentially has huge synergies [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:51:28] spectra are no more research than melting points, or colours. Is it original research to say that sulfur is yellow? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:51:44] petermr: to my opinion, it is different [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:51:58] yannf, yes .. though they different on some of the finer points, of course [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:52:04] s/different/differ/ [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:52:19] petermr: as a spectrum requires quite some expertise, you need to be sure you are measuring the right sustance etc [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:52:21] Wikiversity is still trying to identify policies that would make it possible to permit original research. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:52:22] effe: well we differ then :-) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:52:32] it would be nice though if we would have a tool that combined the spectra [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:52:41] that might clear some boobs in the road [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:53:04] Eloquence: we have nothing to offer but enthusiasm. But we have this new(ish) project called wikiversity that allows a certain amount of research, and certainly allows for collaborating on how to do research and collect source material. It's perfectly seated to take advantage of wikipedia, wikibooks, and commons in a seamless way. It makes it easier for them to do their teaching when they'd rather be researching, and can be [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:53:04] a place to collaborate with fellow researchers. Wikiversity is amorphous and even less "reliable than our other projects, but I think it's our key to reaching the academic community, and through them the publishers. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:53:15] effe: I didn't say I was measuring it. I said I was transcribing it. Where from may be a problem. But if it is in an OA journal then that isn't research [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:53:44] SB_Johnny, I love the Wikiversity idea, but at the moment I'm not seeing enough visionary leadership to turn it into a truly successful project. :( [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:53:49] petermr: with transcribing you mean noting the peaks and associating them with an atom? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:54:26] effe: could be. They are facts, in the full text. But many journals now publish open spectra. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:54:51] cu all [#openaccess :"Verlassend" 23:54] PART: sundance [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:55:10] in any case I wouldn't regard a student following a lab handbook that hundreds had already done as original research. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:55:16] Eloquence: it's a wiki... if you see a need, please try to fill it. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:55:26] SB_Johnny, one can fill only so many needs .. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:55:37] petermr and all: re: audience, around here for every undergrad using wp, there's a professor telling them not to use it... so I think targeting has to go to both groups. Showing the value of what we have is important; so is teaching people how to evaluate what they find and how it got there. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:55:53] petermr: well, at some point, it is :) as you are publishing your own experience, and not referring to someones publishings [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:14] brassratgirl: I agree, but how do you teach common sense? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:18] many people are very unclear on how WP works; this will go triple if we start mirroring journals etc. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:37] brassratgirl: How many undergrads listen to their professors? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:41] you teach it by outreach: how the projects work; what's good & bad about them; how to evaluate them; how to make it better. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:43] if the university of X said - our students measure the spectrum of acetone according to a procedure that has been used for 100 years and we want to give this spectrum to WP it would REFUSE it??? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:47] brassratgirl, well, the upcoming stable version and QA features are certain to have a big impact in this regard [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:49] hill: varies, I expect [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:50] brassratgirl: approaching those profs would be good :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:56:56] eloquence: I can't wait :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:11] brassratgirl, me neither, but I'm also worried. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:17] brassratgirl: and maybe let the ict-introduction learn students how to handle wikipedia? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:35] I mean, I get a variety of students, right? dozens of them check WP in the library, dozens more tell me at the reference desk "I was told not to use online sources" [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:38] Elo: are we reaching a conclusion? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:40] eloquence: about what? [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:43] brassratgirl: wikis aren't good at "outreach" [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:46] Eloquence: I think the stable versions will have a greater impact on WP quality than on the perception by the public. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:57:56] (especially in academia) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:02] we're all afraid to speak for the community [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:07] brassratgirl, wikipedia transforming into an "expert"-centric environment [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:13] petermr, ok [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:14] brassratgirl: actually, my assistants are promoting the use of online sources :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:22] brassratgirl: but well, thats for chemical data :) [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:22] official chat is scheduled to end in a couple minutes. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:37] I would appreciate it if we'd think a bit more about what each one of us can do. [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:47] again, point of reference: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Open_Access_chat/Workgroups [#openaccess 23:58] JOIN: Alphax [#openaccess 23:58] JOIN: xania-away [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:58:58] I would love some help with the media monitoring parts [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:59:14] I developed the FlickrLickr application to monitor Flickr images. It could be theoretically adapted for open access media [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:59:19] Well here's what I plan to do... "sometime this winter" [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:59:24] but I'd need someone to help me get feeds or APIs [#openaccess 17.12.06 23:59:46] eloquence: as long as the measures are soft enough and open enough I think it will be fine; but I'm also not clear on what the QA measures are going to look like (even though I should be :P) [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:00:35] brassratgirl, I've been pushing to make the feature as configurable as possible [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:01:08] configurable how? [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:01:10] I'm going to sit down with my agricultural extension agent (I'm a farmer) and show her what I've been doing on wikis. I'm going to ask her to mention it to others when she's impressed (she will be). And then I'm gonna look foreward to people smarter than me editing pages I've worked on. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:01:34] ok, let's finalize the official part of the chat [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:01:41] first of all, thank you all for coming [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:01:52] do you think we should have a follow-up event soonish? [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:02:04] maybe more focused on specific areas [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:02:32] this one was a very open exploration of issues [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:02:43] sure... a more specific talk about "technical manuals" might be good [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:02:57] Elo: Q? how does this relate to WP? would the wikichemists be involved [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:03:19] well, there appears to be at least one small group of people here interested in chemical data [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:03:27] and I suggest very much that this be coordinated with existing wikiprojects [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:03:38] if I can help with planning a wikichemistry chat, let me know. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:03:52] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:04:07] try martin walker (Walkerma on WP) [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:04:15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal%3AChemistry [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:04:45] I think, in general, we should also start using IRC channels for specific scientific disciplines [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:04:56] so a #wikipedia-chemistry, #wikipedia-sociology, etc. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:04] the de.wikipedians are already doing so [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:13] and it could be a good way for people of similar backgrounds to stay in touch. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:19] hm. on that note: maybe next time we should discuss the "other" wikimedia projects... wikipedia is only one :) [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:19] Eloquence: sounds good [#openaccess 00:05] JOIN: Mokurai [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:33] SB_Johnny, we did discuss a few others before you joined -- se log [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:36] s/se/see [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:05:59] I agree about the disciplines - the issues are so different bewteen them. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:06:01] I will... sorry again for being late, but I was nursing a goat [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:06:05] for reference, the log of this chat is at: http://scireview.de/wiki/openaccess/channel.log [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:06:11] :) [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:06:15] that's the best excuse ever [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:06:17] Eloquence: I'm not sure I can get excited about all scientists going to their separate ghettos. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:06:53] algae, some discussions _are_ disciplinary in nature. we will always have interdisciplinary channels... [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:07:09] :D... yeah, goats always get a good laugh. Even more when you live with them. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:07:44] i agree with algae here, it is very good to have influence from outside the dicipline [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:07:47] I think that wide communities air the issues, smaller ones can take concernted action. There has to be shared purpose. This could be , say, licenses but that is very tough across disciplines [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:07:48] OK, afterparty now? [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:01] OK, I declare the official part of the meeting closed now. I will announce any follow-up event through the same channels as this one [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:07] it would be best to have meetings together, with specific topics [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:16] I think we should keep this channel around and open, in general [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:24] bye all [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:27] thanks, Eloquence... this was a great idea. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:30] good nigh peter [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:37] t [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:08:40] Eloquence: re: same channels, I think you may might have missed the wiki-research mailing list last time. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:09:12] does wiki-research have a mailing list? [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:09:14] algae, what do you mean? [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:09:39] brassratgirl, the configurability of the stable version stuff: mostly 1) which tags should exist, 2) who can set them, 3) what effects do they have (on a per-wiki, per-namespace, per-page basis) [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:09:55] i got the announcement on wikipedia-l, but not on wiki-research-l. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:10:10] the de.wikipedia proposal for instance suggests that the last "sighted" revision should be shown to unregistered users by default .. that I find very problematic. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:10:21] right, so configurability across projects & langs ? [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:10:25] yes [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:10:26] This last announcement got forwarded to the Bytesforall mailing list, which everyone here who wants to know what is happening in developing countries is invited to join. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:10:54] well, nn :) [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:11:01] ttfn [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:11:02] Mokurai, thank you [#openaccess : 00:11] PART: Mokurai [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:11:12] SB_Johnny: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:11:22] thanks [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:11:29] that sounds reasonable, though if configurations are widely different the foundation will want to keep an eye on them as well, so that the difference can be explained properly [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:11:33] to the media etc. [#openaccess 18.12.06 00:12:15] it could be awkward if stable versions means very different things from language to language