Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open

found redirect deletion notice, fwiw

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open

Leeds OA repository links

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2017_Archive_Sep_1#Suspect_or_acceptable.3F (archived) and continued at User_talk:Jytdog#Seeking_consensus about archive links to the University of Leeds repository; the links being inserted by a librarian at the university. Advice welcome on how to incorporate these archive links. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

We should probably pursue the discussion here and notify the other locations that it occurs here. Thanks, --PaleoNeonate - 21:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that this is the best place to have it, but whatever. The OP is almost entirely wrong. There was a discussion at Wikiproject spam (now archived), about a user replacing existing URLs and adding new URLs to a reference archive. I suggested that the person take a pause and get consensus to link to that archive widely, and if they get consensus the community might even build a bot to add the links. The person who was adding the links just caught up with the now-closed discussion, and came to my talk page to ask where they might seek consensus, and I suggested RSN, which is indeed a centralized place to have it and may result in a consensus. (My intention was to post links to that discussion at various WikiProjects, including this one, that might care). Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

My memory of the event is the same as Jydog's, I was the one to initially open the WP:SPAM inquiry. RSN is fine to me if that is preferred. --PaleoNeonate - 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RSN is for deciding whether sources are reliable. The sources under discussion are peer-reviewed papers in Nature and similar journals. There is no question that these are reliable sources. The question at hand is how the reader of an article accesses the papers in question. So we know in advance that RSN is the wrong venue. That question of giving readers access to the open access draft of the paper is within scope of this Wikiproject. User:Jytdog, I'm intrigued that you say I'm "almost entirely wrong" but don't dispute the facts that I've stated. User:PaleoNeonate, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in bringing a report about what initially looked like spam, but quickly appreciating what's happening and that the spam report may have been misguided. I don't think there's a disagreement of "memory" here; just that Jytdog's interpretation and recommendation were hasty and deserve wider discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no question as to whether the archive is open and thus aligns with the values and advocacy of this WikiProject. There is really nothing to debate, here. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus to replace closed links with open ones--it's problematic especially if the original link is to the published and peer-reviewed version of record.

There is, however, great benefit from adding a free-to-read, repository or preprint version in addition to the version of record. The main CS1 citation template already facilitates that with parameters such as arxiv| and pmcid|. As long as the open version is copyright compliant--and authors generally do retain the right to "deposit" or host some version of their article on a personal, institutional, or subject-specific nonprofit website--then a free-to-read link is great!

We need to educate here, not block, so that more readers can get to full-text, without compromising the integrity of other parts of the citation. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree and was wondering myself if CS1 couldn't be improved to have a special |openaccess= parameter or the like. If the existing functionality is equivalent and precise enough this is great. --PaleoNeonate - 04:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jake but none of that addresses whether this particular archive is appropriate to be widely used across WP nor if there is consensus for that. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+I'm trying to wrap my head around the concerns and they seem to fall into two categories: permanence of the repository and procedure.

• As the repository is run by a consortium of universities we can rely on it being sustainable and it won't carry advertising. The Research Excellence Framework which is used to assess higher education institutions in the UK requires that research outputs have to have an open access version available to be considered, so universities are concerned that repositories are accessible.
• As a new editor we can assume Nick's good faith. It looks like he identified a way Wikipedia could be improved and set about adding links. I suspect plenty of experienced Wikipedia editors would have done something similar, particularly since we are encouraged to be bold. In terms of potential conflicts of interest, Nick has declared his link to the University of Leeds on his user page. There is an interest here, but one which benefits Wikipedia.

Since other universities have open access repositories this may be something that crops up in the future (there are ones at Exeter, Edinburgh, and Oxford to name three off the top of my head). By adding links to open access versions of articles Wikipedia's readers are being better served as it becomes easier to access information. External links should be relevant and appropriate; since the links have been added to references already present in Wikipedia we can conclude that's the case. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the ongoing discussion! Certainly Richard every University in the land has an OA repository which are a significant part of the scholarly communication infrastructure. Since April 2016 UK based researchers have been required to upload their accepted manuscript to their institutional repository in order to be eligible for REF. I appreciate the concern around link persistence and even the White Rose consortium might conceivably change repository platform in the future, though given its scale and importance to the Universities, would certainly ensure that URLs were redirected in exactly the same way as a DOI.

There are around 1000 DOIs associated with the University of Leeds cited across 1157 individual Wikipedia pages, many of which will be behind a paywall. Obviously that's a huge undertaking to edit for a single University (even with consensus!) and I wonder if Wikipedia might consider passing DOI resolutions through oaDOI which will automatically redirect to a legal open access copy if available or on to the Version of Record if not - https://oadoi.org/ Nick Sheppard (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that the OA Links go to a version of the paper that may not be the version of record. That is why keeping the original publisher's link (whether as a url, doi, jstor parameter or whatever) is important. But as Ocaasi already stated, if the OA repository links are used to augment the version-of-record links, rather than to replace them, I think they would be both non-problematic and helpful. The same exact concern applies to oaDOI. Doi links SHOULD NOT BE PASSED THROUGH OADOI because that would replace the version of record with another version of more dubious provenance. But using an oaDOI link to augment rather than replace could be helpful. --David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I follow what the debate is; but in the example pointed to in the first discussion, the |doi= to Nature remained intact and that sends the reader to the version of record. The |url= field prior to the edit was to the paywalled *Nature* article, which is both redundant due to the presence of the doi and a bit misleading since URLs are taken to be freely accessible by default (See Help:Citation Style 1 § Access level of |url=). If the version of record has a doi/jstor/hdl ID, then those should be used, and if there's an alternate way of reading a source easily that don't fit in say |arxiv=, |pmc= or whatever, then that can be linked in |url=, no? The issue only comes up when the paywalled version of record has no identifier and neither does the convenient link. Perhaps then one could have |postscript=. Manuscript available via White Rose Research Online 112179. or even make a template and use |id={{WhiteRose|112179}} if this is a common enough repository. Umimmak (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The question is hand, is -- is the community OK with links being added to the Leeds OA repository in particular being added widely throughout WP? Somebody from that repostitory was manually doing that, and we asked them to stop and get consensus. If folks are OK with it -- if there is reasonable discussion and consensus - then my question is, would it be doable to have a bot do this instead of doing it manually? But first things first. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay I see, I guess I was placing too much emphasis in the discussion about removing the nature URL instead of adding the other one. I'm honestly skeptical a bot *could* do it, unless it's by making a template and appending {{WhiteRose|112179}} to |id=, because then there wouldn't be a risk of removing a potentially useful URL. Or, ideally, they'd get hdl or something like that so Wikipedia can use preexisting parameters. [Edit: or maybe not... I guess in theory the version of record could only have an hdl identifier and not a doi, and I wouldn't want that to get replaced 03:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)] I wouldn't want a bot to blindly replace URLs.

Does this repository only hold prepublication manuscripts and not versions with the of-the-record pagination and typesetting? Presumably editors are using the final version for, say, page numbers of citations and the like, so it might be confusing to have the repository link be in the URL parameter, so having it at the end with |arxiv= might make more sense? And do these repositories provide any additional information or are they just non-paywalled ways to access manuscripts? If it was published through an open-access journal, or if someone has already added a free link to the source, I don't see a reason to add these links, and then it might be a bit excessive. Umimmak (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up, ooh I just played around with this oadoi and I really dislike how, say, oadoi.org/10.1038/nature21377 automatically opens the PDF. I don't know if there's an official wikipedia policy but if there's an option between a link to a PDF and a link to a website linking to the PDF, in this case eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/112179/, that also provided additional information, the latter is better. And I second David Eppstein's argument above -- DOIs should always go to the publisher's page, but even as a supplement I'm not sure I like having surprise PDFs for people clicking on links. Umimmak (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If they're references to papers by Leeds faculty, I don't see a problem with links to the Leeds repo being added to them (as long as they don't replace the version-of-record links). --David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it worth taking a quick poll to gauge opinions on whether the links should be added or is this discussion already heading towards a consensus? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: As far as I've seen, the links under discussion are pre-publication drafts of papers that are published in paywalled journals. I think we all agree with "If it was published through an open-access journal, or if someone has already added a free link to the source, I don't see a reason to add these links". As you've seen with your experiment with Whiterose, the institutional repository link will normally take you to a basic bibliographic record, which will say where the finished paper is published, and give you the option to download the open PDF. @David Eppstein: and @OAnick: I agree that we shouldn't route DOIs to oaDOI by default, but citations should point to an additional OA alternative where one is available, and the Whiterose links would seem to be the ideal way to do this for the universities that participate in that repository. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell (WMUK): I think a consensus is emerging that adding Whiterose links is okay; just in addition to, rather than replacing official links. Thanks for explaining the context! MartinPoulter (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been no real discussion of whether this specific repository is OK or not. Again I get it that folks here are fans of OA; there is no question of that here, and that is not the question about this archive. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: What are your remaining concerns about the repository? The discussion has been wide-ranging, but specific points about the repository have also been discussed. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Thanks for asking. The appropriateness of this repository has not been really discussed - this discussion has been diffuse. My sense of the sentiment here has been - it is open access, so great! -- which is not really looking hard at whether it would good for WP to have this linked extensively. Relevant factors would include how stable long term it is (which has been briefly discussed), how good they are about only hosting valid OA content (if they are not careful that is fine but should be noted so people check first before they link); whether anybody cares that they track useage... that sort of thing. Other people may have other concerns. Things like this were brought up when for example archive.is was discussed in the several RfCs over it. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if it's a new initiative but spotted ??http://www.oabot.org/ on twitter... Nick Sheppard (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I indeed notice OABot assisted edits by various users today. Some of those links work, but others unfortunately lead to domain parking or result in 404 errors... --PaleoNeonate - 20:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Some appeared to be WP:ELNEVER violations to me. this diff was to a deadlink, and when i checked it out using internetarchive, it was the published paper, not a preprint. I don't know how or if the bot determines if the link it suggests is actually OK to use. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This was done as part of an editathon apparently, but I'm not sure what is the relevant WP page or link about the event. On the other hand the bot's page and related changes were easy to locate. --PaleoNeonate - 17:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Nashville#Upcoming May possibly be related. --PaleoNeonate - 18:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, yes this editathon is happening because of the Open Access Week. The main page for the campaign is WP:OABOT, your feedback is welcome on its talk page. Changes to the tool are welcome (as pull requests on https://github.com/dissemin/oabot). Cheers - Pintoch (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a campaign website on meta, easiest way to get there is oawiki.org. That's where the guidance on determining copyright compliance lives (linked from the tool itself, also easily accessed at oawiki.org/copyright). There is of course reason to examine edits that don't comply with copyright, and the whole point of the tool is for individual editors to help make that determination on a case-by-case basis.

Also, a university repository is not merely an 'archive', like archive.is was. We have InternetArchiveBot for mere archiving (fixing of dead links). A university repository is a legitimate, legal venue for authors and institutions to deposit their work. In many cases, that is not just for preservation reasons, but because licensing contracts explicitly permit it for giving access to readers and dissemination/communication of the scholarly findings. As noted, contracts can differ even on "green oa" repository depositing, some only permitting a preprint, or some having an embargo period after publication.

The same applies to author websites, which are frequently exempt from strict prohibitions on sharing a copy of their work, in some form. We are trying to help editors in this 'global editathon' make that determination so that readers can check the publication for themselves even without an affiliated library or personal subscription. OA is good, but that doesn't mean every edit trying to supply legitimate secondary links is going to be perfect. Our focus now is on improving the tool to consistently present better suggestions and to incorporate more guidance for editors about how to decide what to add, or not add. Cheers, Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ocaasi (WMF): The oawiki.org redirect is broken by the way... - Pintoch (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Gah, forward slashes! Redirected the meta page. Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Jake says about university repositories generally. With White Rose specifically, a bit further up Jytdog makes a good point about ensuring the White Rose archive is stable in the long term (it's important that it doesn't go off-line otherwise that creates a maintenance issue for us) and that the content is valid (abides by copyright). Their stated mission is to provide a long-term repository, and it's an official site supported by several universities (more info on its set up way back in 2005). Importantly they only provide access where copyright allows and their guidelines state that library staff check the copyright status of submissions to the repository. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Guide for access to research: looking for early readers

To help researchers (and Wikipedians), I've been collaboratively working on a now 24-option guide about how to access sources when you don't have access to them. The folks at WP:RX are pros at this kind of digging. Could you give it 10 minutes and feel free to make comments, suggestions, corrections, or additions? Don't hesitate to be bold :)

You're a Researcher without Access to Research: What do you do?

Thank you!

Jake Orlowitz Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

ANI

Just FYI, I just opened an ANI with regard to OABOT. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Copyright suggestion notice

Related to the above, a suggestion has been made to clarify guidance around linking to OA versions: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Suggested edit. Discussion is ensuing. Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Open Books Publishers

This WikiProject Spam report may be of interest to this project, input welcome. Thanks, --PaleoNeonate - 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia