Talk:JSTOR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee JSTOR was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Libraries (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Open Access (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon JSTOR is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Open (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon JSTOR is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

template:JSTOR[edit]

I have created template:JSTOR to put at the end of articles on academic journals. It takes the value "no" which is the number and "name". e.g.

{{JSTOR|no=00063444|name=Biometrika}}

gives JSTOR ISSN 00063444 Dunc| 09:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image on left or right[edit]

Dunharris, instead of an edit war please post your link showing that all images must be on the right side and cant be on the right side. These are guidelines, sometimes esthetically things make sense and look good on the left and are done that way. Stbalbach 15:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The image of the Giant J looks asthetically better on the left because

  1. It faces into the page.
  2. The J starts the article, in the same fashion large letters are used in print medium to start a book or article, even illuminated manuscripts, which the J is fashioned after.

Dunc has moved it back to the right. He has a history of being obsessive about image locations, in fact he vandalized Wetmans personal page back on April 20th to prove his point on another article over this same issue. Stbalbach 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

For reference, the Manual of Style suggests but does not require image placement at the right.

"Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned, but this is not a hard and fast rule."

In this case, my subjective opinion is that the J logo to the left is more aesthetically pleasing, but of course that's subject to review. As Stbalbach says, it echoes the style of illuminated manuscripts with a leading drop cap; I think it looks classy. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: Image Left or Right[edit]

This is a straw poll to determine if the "J" image should be on the left side or right side of the page.

Example image left
Example image right

The image of the Giant J looks asthetically better on the left because:

  1. It faces into the page.
  2. The J starts the article, in the same fashion large letters are used in print medium to start a book, or article, even illuminated manuscripts, which the J is fashioned after and used for.

For reference, the Manual of Style suggests but does not require image placement at the right.

"Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned, but this is not a hard and fast rule."

As User_talk:TenOfAllTrades says above: "As it echoes the style of illuminated manuscripts with a leading drop cap; I think it looks classy."

  • Vote for Left side
  1. per nom. Stbalbach 18:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. left side, definitely -Jmh123 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. left side. Consistency is all very well, but only occasionally. Hornplease 08:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Despite running counter to precedent, I think that in this case the left side placement is the better choice. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. left side, baby, looks leet Nardman1 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote for Right side
  1. While it might look "classy" I favor consistency in article lay out, which makes me side with the right. JoshuaZ 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. I feel similarly. Guettarda 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Joshua and Guettarda. The right side also looks much more natural to me, but that's probably because I'm used to it being there in Wikipedia articles. That being said, I'm not sure it will break the bank either way. Can I vote weak right side?  ;P --Deville (Talk) 11:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. I'm probably just a creature of habit, but the right-side image layout looks better to me. --MarcoTolo 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Coming here from the RfC. Right side, definitely. The illuminated-manuscript-look argument of the left-siders sounds good in theory but doesn't work for me on the page. Matching other Wikipedia articles is a good thing. Maybe just because I'm used to it, I'm a right-sider. Herostratus 08:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Per Herostratus, with the provisio that I can live with it either way. Powers 13:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. This image is not part of the text, it's just JSTOR's logo. It belongs on the right Goplat 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Definately the right. Orbitalwow 07:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. From RfC. Right. If there's a dispute, use recommended style. Tyrenius 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of text[edit]

Michael Snow, there was some deleted text in the recent edits, and I noticed you said "per request of JSTOR" in the edit notes. Did JSTOR ask that this text be deleted? It was accurate information. --Stbalbach 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

relation to other articles[edit]

Some of us are working on updating the general lists of article and bibliographic databases, each of which will have an article or stub. So we'd like to cooperate with others keeping track.
Could user 128.112.164.182 please email or leave a message on User:DGG. I'd like to get in touch with someone who obviously also knows this well. (and anyone else interested)

I at any rate am not plannning to add individual journals, unles there's a reason--there's 8,000 in WoK and 10 X that outside it, not even counting the extinct ones. Unless there's something special to say, I think the journals' web pages are good enough & easy to find with a web search. I know others here differ, and I wouldn't dream of persuading them, but I only want to do the dbs. DGG 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

JSTOR stands for?[edit]

What does the acronym JSTOR stand for?--Lucy-marie 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good question. Journal STORage? I checked the home page and couldn't find anything. Maybe not an abbreviation? -- Stbalbach 15:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed Journal Storage (project) according to google and subscriber sites eg here. Edit: er, as the jstor image in the article also has it, I've just noticed.... Hakluyt bean 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the JSTOR acronym did not stand for anything[edit]

I think that someone needs to call the faculty of JSTOR to find out if it actually stands for something. A teacher talked about it, and said that she called the faculty, but the faculty said that the acronym was random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.66.13 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it was JournalSTORage (or JournalSTORe) -- you cannot get something this appropriate by accident. I'll keep an eye out for a reference. DGG (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why no physics journals?[edit]

What does JSTOR have no physics journals? Michael Hardy 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good question, and one to which I cannot find an immediate answer. My impression, based on my experience and on the collection list, is that JSTOR is used more for topics in the social sciences and humanities, with relatively little coverage of the "hard" sciences. Presumably those subjects have their own specialized databases. The reason for not including physics journals in JSTOR is likely historical at this point, since science initially was scarce in the JSTOR database developed with the Mellon grant. The Mellon foundation doesn't seem to do much with science; that's what the NSF is for. That said (and yours an interesting question!), I don't think it merits specific mention in the Wikipedia article. I'm going to remove the line "No physics journals appear in JSTOR"; physics doesn't strike me as something a reader would expect to find in JSTOR, at least not more than, say, chemistry or computer science. Why single out physics? Anyway, my rambling comment is done. -Phoenixrod 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
JSTOR by design does not cover areas where commercially available backfiles are available from publishers, and that presently includes almost all physics journals.When a journal previously available on JStor becomes available from the publisher, the jstor material is removed and the annual fee reduced proportionately. When jstor started, these backfiles wee of course not available, but emphasis was reasonably put on material in high demand that would repay the cost of filming. In general, those libraries that would have bought such backfiles already had the journals. If there is a title that you think needs to be included, suggest it to them, or mention it here and I will. DGG 05:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Images[edit]

By our own Policy on fair use, only one of the two images can reasonably be used.

Simple logo
Clear cut Fair Use case, but small and of minimal recognizability or use for the users.
Large image
Need a better template and a proper fair use rationale, also include the logo.
Third possibility
A screenshot of the page in a {{Infobox Website}} template.

Any thoughts? If no answers, I'll go ahead and keep the logo for the third possibility. Circeus 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The third possibility seems to be reasonable and most informative. Infact, should it not be the third one, per consistency with other wikipedia articles about websites?Bless sins 01:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Deleted one of the image, kept the other as the infobox "logo". Circeus 17:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

I have failed this article for a number of reasons, detailed below:

  1. The article cites only five inline references, each of which is only used once or twice.
  2. The article needs some expansion, as it is only KB approx, much of which is not the actual text (references, images, see also, externals etc)
  3. Lead could do with a little bit of expansion.

These problems are minor, and the article is not that far from being resubmitted. I wish you luck in regards to improvements to this article. Any questions should be forwarded to my talk page. Cheers, Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say "not that far from being a GA candidate."-Susanlesch 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I had actually placed this article "under review" and then Anonymous Dissident failed it (I have asked him not to do that in the future).[1] I am putting it on hold. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

  • Could the lead briefly summarize the disciplines covered by JSTOR journals and could the article list them more specifically?
  • Is there a list of the journals covered by JSTOR somewhere that you could link to?
  • Could you add a phrase briefly describing William Bowen since he is an important person in JSTOR's history?
  • The breadth of material in the archive makes it useful in investigating trends in linguistics over time. - Why are you singling this out? The breadth makes a lot of other projects possible as well.
  • You need a source for the Artstor info. - DONE Johnbod 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are you not using Schonfeld's 400-page history of JSTOR? It would seem that such a book would add a lot of detail to your page.

Prose (I have taken the liberty of doing some copy editing myself):

  • JSTOR was conceived by William G. Bowen as a solution to one of the problems faced by libraries, especially research and university libraries, due to the increasing number of academic journals in existence. Most libraries found it prohibitively expensive in terms of cost and space to maintain a comprehensive collection of journals. - awkward; list problem right away; also, "prohitibitively expensive" is the same as cost - was the only problem space?
  • Online access and full-text search ability improved access dramatically. - access to who?
  • JSTOR access was improved based on feedback from these sites. - only the access was improved?
  • In addition to its use as an archive for individual journals, JSTOR has also been used as part of research methodology. - awkward

If you have any questions about this review, let me know. Just drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to re-review the article. Awadewit | talk 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sorry, I didnt notice that he was reviewing it. Im fast on the links. -- Anonymous Dissident

I am failing the article, as not all of the above conditions have been met. Awadewit | talk 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Access to JSTOR articles[edit]

My main critics of JSTOR are:

  • It costs 30+ damn $ to read a single article, 10 pages long. that's outright robbery
  • It doesn't give affordable access to individual subscribers. You have to be affiliated. Too bad if you're not with one of the libraries or universities on their list!
  • It just sits there tempting me through Google Scholar and other search engines, and when I get to the article, it's off limits to me. Like showing food to the starving, then telling them they can't have it! Sigh! And often it's only available on JSTOR on the whole internet.
  • Why the furious monetization and institutionalization of access to these papers?
  • They are just "old media" trying to perpetuate their controlling ways into the digital age. It's the age of Internet, Google and Wikipedia for God's sake! Information wants - if not to be free as in beer - at least to be freely accessible. Stop making it so difficult for regular people to see it.

Visarga (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

any public library in most countries can get a person copies of articles from the journals JSTOR covers, though it can take a week or so. There is usually no charge. DGG (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it works for you, but not for me. There is only one such university here in my country and I would have to become student again. They don't even rent the journals I am interested in. So I would say you can't understand because you've never been in my shoes.Visarga (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I still find the difficulty to get into JSTOR without going to a library quite annoying, especially (as in this age of information) if one wants the information NOW (as so many of us have become accustomed to). 66.188.98.222 (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is for talk about the article, not about the quality or deficiency of JSTOR service. For that, contact JSTOR staff, not Wikipedia volunteers. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Check out WP:RESOURCE. If you need an article, send me an email and I'll check to see if I have access -- my library is OK, not great. II | (t - c) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If there is or has been criticism of JSTOR perhaps it should be referenced in the article.Corlyon (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a section regarding access policy issues experienced by many internet users who don't match any of JSTOR's access offers. I hope that the other editors will let it live, even if not in its original form. It is an important issue regarding access to scientific knowledge for the individual scholars and many users who are lucky enough to get access don't realize it.Visarga (talk)

I didn't see this before I removed it. Blogs and facebook are not reliable sources and the rest of it was original research and synthesis. Sorry, but WP can't be a way of getting the word out about this. --Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have redeleted this section after it was restored. If there are any reliable sources about this issue, please produce them. Otherwise it is clearly unverifiable, original research, and as admitted above, a campaign to right a wrong; justified perhaps but not part of WP's mission.--Slp1 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

How does one mention the access rip-off in measured terms in the article? Say I'm researching a polymath like Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne and I'm looking for his obit in Man in 1945. There it is, Vol. 45, (Jan. - Feb., 1945), pp. 20-21; stable url -www.jstor.org/stable/2793014; just 2 pages and they want $20 for it. Yes I can go to the library and download it for free, and generate lots of carbon en route. This restricts "knowledge" to monopolising institutions with increasing levels of jargon. The humble taxpayer is paying to generate knowledge in universities, but when he wants it easily he is being shafted. I much prefer the PLoS system.78.19.217.160 (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Update for Current Scholarship Program[edit]

Article needs updating now that JSTOR has current collections in addition to archive collections. Current Scholarship Program at JSTOR. Nurg (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Involvement in Legal Prosecution and Arrest of Academics on Hacking/Copyright Claims[edit]

I think JSTOR deserves mention of their involvement in the arrest and prosecution of Aaron Swartz, a researcher at Harvard, on trumped up hacking charges. Aaron was involved in the creation of RSS and has fought for net-neutrality and free exchange of data online. He is accused of downloading too many articles from JSTOR, even though he is credentialed through his academic affiliation to do so. I can't see how he could have possibly been arrested for that with which he is charged, but I am one who strongly believes in things like free exchange of ideas and information. However, perhaps someone would like to add something, or, if later I add something, edit and review it to make sure it sits comfortable as not having any point of view. Adrade (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331/Papers_from_Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society__fro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slark (talkcontribs) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR responsibility[edit]

These bastards killed Aaron Swartz.

Why wasn't that made clear in this article? Who edited out the information that documented JSTOR's culpability in this tragedy? This is important because this event, in this year 2013, will be a turning point in cyber law and data access. I suspect Wikipedia editor's have financial ties to JSTOR and its supporting institutions and have continually modified the article to remove any mention or citations about the stupidity, greed, and callousness of JSTOR and MIT re the Swartz tragedy.

Who keeps removing the damaging truth? And why? Youth wants to know. 75.62.131.249 (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)