Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  About
WikiProject Open
  Talk   Open Access   Open Educational
Resources
  For new
Wikipedians
  WikiProject planning   Join
the team!
 
About this talk page
This page is a discussion forum for WikiProject Open, WikiProject Open Access, Communicate OER, and the online course Writing Wikipedia Articles. WELCOME! If you haven't used a wiki talk page before: ask a question or make a new comment by clicking "new section", or to reply to somebody else's comment, click "edit" its section header below, and add your comment to the bottom. Always put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment (this creates a signature and time stamp). Or watch the 3 minute video to the right!
Some other ways to connect
  • Email: Join our email list, or browse its archives. Please discuss anything related to openness and Wikipedia.
  • Chat: You might find other project members on the Freenode IRC network in the #OER or #WikiProjectOpen channels. (These are only very lightly used as of March 2014!)


found redirect deletion notice, fwiw[edit]

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Open.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Open, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding WP:PAYWALL (WP:V)[edit]

Discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Encouraging_accessibility

Current

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Suggested (new)

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).

That said, all else being equal, a source freely available to read online is preferable because more readers will be able to verify its claims. If two sources are equally suitable to verify a claim, accessibility is a reason to prefer one over the other.

Thoughts welcome. Ocaasi t | c 11:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Identifying the status of resources that have their own Wikipedia articles[edit]

Firstly, apologies if this is the wrong place to be raising this issue.

In browsing for podcasts today, I stumbled upon a podcast of a book entitled From Dictatorship to Democracy, by Gene Sharp. Upon further investigation I found that the book is in the public domain, and available for download in both audio (link to LibriVox) and text (PDF) formats, online (the PDF is provided by the Albert Einstein Institution). (Page 2 of the PDF shows the public domain notice.)

This public domain status is not at all clear from the article, and when I checked Wikipedia articles on other books by the same author it was not clear what was in the public domain and what was not. This leads me to some questions:

  1. Should Wikipedia articles seek to contain such information - for instance, as part of the 'book' template?
  2. If so, how does Wikipedia deal with items that are in the public domain in some places but not others?
  3. Should Wikipedia seek to provide links - in articles about public domain information - to a or the public domain source? (This may not be possible in all cases.)

These questions presumably would apply equally to works with a range of licences that fall short of public domain but permit sharing/copying/viewing in some way. I have not asked about language at all, as I am sure this topic could get very complicated very quickly.

Please feel free to tell me where to go if these questions are misplaced; otherwise I look forward to thoughts from those who have been thinking about how Wikipedia might address the casual browser's request for further information (short of "It's somewhere in the multitudinous links at the bottom of the article"). Ambiguosity (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Free software movement and Open-source software movement articles[edit]

Hello WikiProject members and everybody else interested in the Open movement and its efforts watching this page:
please participate in the discussion I started over at Talk:Free software movement: Merger proposals: the issue of the separate Open-source software movement article.

Please comment there and not here for a centralized discussion. Thank you.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Feedback wanted for instructions for adding OA text to Wikipedia[edit]

Hi all

For the past several months I've been working on clear documentation and a metrics tool for reusing OA text on Wikipedia. I've also been working on a project with UNESCO to reuse text from their publications which has helped refine the instructions a great deal. I would really appreciate if you could take a look at the instructions and let me know what you think. The main goals behind them has been:

  • Keep them as simple and concise as possible (something that many sets of guidance on Wikipedia really struggle with).
  • Make them usable by less experienced Wikipedia editors

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)