Wikipedia talk:Access2Research

Please feel free to add questions here that are not yet answered in the FAQ

---

Global options?

This petition is very US-focused. Are there any similar campaigns going on outside of the US that those in other countries could support? Mike Peel (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are, we'd love to hear about them :). The US petition, interestingly, has gained a lot of strength because most of say, Europe, is already at this level to some degree or another - it's the US that's behind the times. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mike, did you see this? In many respects, individual EU countries or national research institutions are ahead of the US on OA mandates (I am thinking of the French mandates for example). It's comforting to see something happen at EU level as EC framework programs have become the main (if not the only) source of funding for a large number of researchers in many countries in the EU.--DarTar (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's true only to some degree. This is the best resource: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/index.php?sortby=country Generally speaking the OA situation is way better in the USA, the NIH being of course the main success.

There are many initiatives in the world although this seems to be particularly popular in this moment, anyway there would be other things nobody else cares about and it would be nice to addess, for instance the horrible m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. --Nemo 10:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Reframe to include all who support A2R?

The page is focused on supporting a great initiative; but parts of it are oddly WMF-specific. It would be stronger if it described the position that many in the community share, and noted which of our groups support it -- including the WMF and US chapters. Any questions specifically about individual entities like the Foundation could be part of a separate FAQ. – SJ + 20:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Have the US chapters specifically come out in favour of it? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We should ask for their position; I expect that they both would. – SJ + 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So...they haven't expressed an opinion, and you're wondering why we haven't reframed it to include them? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Less FAQ, more focus on the idea

I made a version that's more exlpanation, less FAQ. If it seems ok, feel free to use it. – SJ + 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually quite like it, but others may have a different opinion --DarTar (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me, but don't forget to merge in the intermediate edits by Daniel and myself! -Pete (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is no objection for integrating SJ's changes. I'll go ahead and merge them with the most recent edits. --DarTar (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Where this list should live

Let me restate this, which I brought up by email:

To the extent that this document addresses what the Wikimedia Foundation is doing, and why, I believe it is essential that it be published on the Wikimedia Foundation wiki. While it's certainly useful to have an ongoing, accessible place for anyone to add relevant information, the page plays a very important function of transparency and accountability: helping the reader understand how and why this decision was made.

The word "we" really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as a reflection of any group. Just as an article about a company shouldn't say "We offer these products," it's inappropriate for a page about the Foundation's decision to be phrased as "We are supporting…"

However, it is very useful to hear clearly from the Foundation why it's doing something. That's why there's a separate wiki that is reserved for statements from the Foundation. We should use it; perhaps summarizing and linking to that information here. -Pete (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is a useful eventual place for it to be put - in the meantime, however, we're trying to inform the community about what's going on. Sticking things on what is, from an editor's point of view, an external site, has time and time again been shown to cause nothing but problems - we end up saying "if you want to know about what we're doing, please follow us across to this, from your perspective, external site where you are faced with (typically) a different interface from that you are used to". Even ignoring this, the Foundation wiki does not allow open editing; we need to keep a venue for people to ask questions or make suggestions in a transparent fashion - questions like "wouldn't this be best on Foundation wiki"?

I have no problem with copying the FAQ across to the Foundation wiki, and directing blog readers to that (assuming we include contact information should they have questions, and I'm happy to volunteer to be that content). That is perfectly adequate for the blog, and for readers. For the pre-release discussion, and for editors, we need a discussion venue where discussion can actually take place. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Oliver, I think we're saying exactly the same thing, with different emphasis. Here's what I suggest, which I think is compatible with all you say:

• Push the following 3 questions to the Foundation Wiki:
  • Why does the Wikimedia Foundation support this?
  • How was the decision made to support this petition?
  • When does the Wikimedia Foundation take public positions on policy issues?
• Leave the rest here, encouraging anyone and everyone to improve it
• Link to both from the blog post

(and I see no problem with leaving the full list here for refinement until the blog post is published.)

Does that work? -Pete (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to just duplicate between the wikis, leaving this here for comment and the other on foundationwiki for linking to from the blog? Otherwise we end up cutting it up. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in cutting it up -- one would be a FAQ of "how the WMF thinks about things like this" while the other would be a FAQ of "give me deeper information about the current petition -- seems like a pretty logical split to me. (The FAQ format could even be abandoned for the former if desired.) But, if you disagree, I think duplication is still better than nothing on the Foundation wiki at all -- the important thing, IMO, is that the WMF's words about its own actions be put in a place where the authorship and authenticity is easily defensible. (Think of it, perhaps, as as establishing a reliable source about the Foundation's position.) -Pete (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure; as repeatedly said, I have no problem with you copying it over :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't make that copy. I don't work for the Foundation; having me post it would only muddy the message of what the Foundation is saying. I do stuff like fixing typos on Foundation Wiki, but I don't speak for the Foundation. -Pete (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly advice against breaking the FAQ in two and moving half of it to a non-editable space that doesn't support community discussion. This is totally against the spirit of engaging the community in this initiative. If we think there is still a confusion about attribution of statements in these FAQ please let's fix them here. --DarTar (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We all seem to be agreed that duplicating on the foundation site is acceptable; can we go with that as a compromise solution? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am totally fine with having a copy of the FAQ on the WMF website if needed. I am against linking to it as opposed to this page from the blog post (as Pete is suggesting) as it will kill all community discussion.--DarTar (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's very hard to believe that this page was place here on en.wiki when we have Meta: which is obviously perfect for it from all points of view. I hope it will soon join the bereaved Meta pages of m:Category:Open access. --Nemo 09:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong way to accomplish our goal

The government should not fund research (other than classified military research) which will not be made publicly available in the near future. However, going through the White House to do this is inappropriate. The President is merely supposed to execute the laws. The policies and laws of the United States are supposed to be decided upon by the Congress, not the President. So a proper petition would be directed to the Congress and not to the President. Also it is paradoxical that the White House would be collecting signatures to petition itself. Thus this appears to me to be a political gimmick by the Obama administration to try to get support and addresses to use during the current Presidential campaign. Since Obama has been a disaster as President, this is not something of which we should be part. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama is trying to gather signatures himself? And look, when Congress opens up a public petitions site and A2R or a similar org stick something up there, I'm sure we'll be happy to support it. As for Obama's record - it doesn't matter. We're not politically partisan, we don't care what he's done elsewhere or how well he's done it. We care about what he can and might do in this area. People should not confuse petitioning office holders for having an opinion on their efficacy. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are currently two main venues to push OA on the federal agenda of the US, a legislative and an executive one. On the legislative front the research, publishing and funder community has started lobbying for or against bills like Research Works Act or w:Federal Research Public Access Act. In this case the petition is asking for an executive action by the US President that will produce an effect on policy. As the Access2Research founders note: "Any petition receiving more than 25,000 digital signatures is placed on the desk of the President’s Chief of Staff and must be integrated into policy and political discussions. ". Also note that WMF cannot lobby in support or against legislation due to its status as a non-profit. --DarTar (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A detail, but I'm pointing this out because it's so widely misunderstood -- a 501(c)(3) non-profit can lobby for legislation, it's just limited in how much it can do so. The limits are more forgiving than is commonly believed (and outlined at the IRS page you linked). -Pete (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct (which is what happened with SOPA), thanks for the clarification --DarTar (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

To put it more explicitly:

• Petitioning the President rather than the Congress (which appropriates the money and defines the criteria for making grants) tends to undermine the Constitutional order of the United States government which is not something which we should do. The President does not have any legitimate power to do what he is offering to do for you.
• Obama (like most other politicians) does not care about this particular issue (or any other specific issue), rather he is interested in co-opting as many people as possible, that is, tricking you into helping his re-election by making you think that he is going to give you what you want. Do not fall for it! JRSpriggs (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  JRSpriggs, I'm not a constitutional scholar. You, I assume, are not a constitutional scholar. None of us here are constitutional scholars. The US government, on the other hand, has a substantial population of them, all wandering around and constitutionaling. Have they ever come out and said that asking for something was undermining the constitution? I don't think We the People every claimed the Office of the President could do everything it was petitioned with, and I don't think we did either - it's merely the only venue open to us. Obama may not be able to directly help on the issue, but he can ask congress to introduce legislation that does - and until the First Amendment clause that permits the right to petition government for redress of grievances is removed, we're not doing anything wrong by talking to him. Again; show me where the petitions site is for congress.

  I'm not sure why you think "wanting the President to do something about OA" translates to "more votes for the President", particularly since We the People allows us damned dirty foreigners to sign as well. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you may send a petition to anyone in government. That privilege is protected by the First Amendment. However, that does not mean that it is a wise or ethical thing to do. If you bypass the proper channels and make requests of officials who are not properly empowered to grant those requests, then you are implying that you believe that they do have that power and you are undermining the authority of the officials who properly have that power. This tends to push the United States in the direction taken by ancient Roma from a republic to an empire. This is very bad.

They will not offend people by excluding foreigners from signing, but they are hoping that people registered to vote in the United States will sign; and thus feel that they should re-elect Obama in order to give him the opportunity to follow through on the request made in the petition. Also they collect information on the signers which, I feel confident, will be used to send political solicitations (and requests for donations) to you later in the campaign. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's well within the executive branch's ability to establish policies for its agencies within the legal framework established by Congress. It's common practice. And it's hard for me to imagine how Congress would be capable of micromanaging every detail of every Federal agency. A apart from any matters of constitutional law or philosophy of government, it strikes me as impractical to the point of absurdity. In the specific example cited, it appears that Congress dictated that the NIH should adopt an open access policy; that's fine, but in my opinion it would be much better if agencies would simply recognize the public benefit of open access policies, and spare Congress the need to make such decrees. And it seems a petition to the White House is the most straightforward way for the American people to request that agencies do so.

As for political solicitations based on petition signatures, it's been my experience in general that of all the corrupt and questionable things done by politicians, this is not one of them. I could be wrong of course, but this speculation isn't particularly compelling to me. -Pete (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Internet Defense League

Who thinks the Foundation should join the http://internetdefenseleague.org/ ? I haven't looked at it closely enough to form an opinion yet. Forbes story. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, the only thing they seem to be offering is automatic code to take down a website. We don't want to fully take down Wikipedia, I think, ever - and if we did, we know how. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be trying to track legislative threats which may be useful given the extent to which moneyed interests will usually fragment, astroturf, and repeat initially unsuccessful attempts. 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

FUTON bias

Perhaps mentioning the FUTON bias would be helpful? 71.212.251.217 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

+1 -- great point! Please feel free to add it in however you like. -Pete (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done 71.212.251.217 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for adding it! -Pete (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)