Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open/Archive 4

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)

Open Books Publishers

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

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Android (operating system) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Android (operating system) to be moved to Android OS. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Saylor Foundation listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Saylor Foundation to be moved to Saylor Academy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontiers in... journal series

There's a discussion about whether or not the controversial Frontiers in... open access journal series should have an article on Wikipedia. Your feedback would be welcomed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion: Lists of open access repositories in Africa, Americas, Australia, Canada, India

A discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted:

• List of open access repositories in Africa
• List of open access repositories in the Americas
• List of open access repositories in Australia
• List of open access repositories in Canada
• List of open access repositories in Croatia
• List of open access repositories in India

The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of open access repositories in India until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of each article. -- 12:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Open on Wikidata

Hi all

I made a start on Wikiproject Open on Wikidata here as part of my coursework assignment for a Mozilla Open Leadership course. I've tried to make it as accessible as possible for new contributors to try to grow the Wikidata community including for experts to contribute their knowledge. I've included overviews of the major kinds of items I think would be most common. All feedback very welcome.

Best

John Cummings (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Open (sharing) economy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Open (sharing) economy to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of open access projects listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of open access projects to be moved to List of open-access projects. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of open access projects listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of open access projects to be moved to List of open-access projects. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Interested

I am interested in participating, mostly by adding the {{Open access}} template to the many journal articles I cite when I write articles. However, I am confused as to what the difference between the orange open access template and the automatically generated green one that appears when a PMC identifier is added? Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 19:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of a citation is to help a reader locate the source used by an editor to support the text in a Wikipedia article. The green access signal is an indicator to readers that the source linked from the identifier is free-to-read. cs1|2 templates (and by extension, the editors who place them in Wikipedia articles) are not in the business of identifying any particular source as an open access source. Open access is an agreement between a work's author and the publisher that dictates reuse of the source content. Wikipedia should have no part in identifying sources that may or may not be truly open access; that is properly the duty and obligation the reader who wishes to reuse open access content to confirm from the author and publisher that such reuse is permissible. To avoid the possible connotation that cited works are open access, cs1|2 avoids the orange access icon in favor of the green where green only means that the source may be freely read without cost or obligation to the reader.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Graphs from WIPO publications now available on Commons

Hi all

I've started working with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to share graphs from their publications on Commons. The first 50 are available now here, taken from the 2016 and 2017 'Facts and Figures' publications. Please take a look and add useful ones to articles so that WIPO can see the value of sharing content under an open license.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ubuntu (operating system) to be moved to Ubuntu. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for comment on Sci-Hub

There is a request for comment on the Sci-Hub article:

Which of the following should be the opening paragraph of the Sci-Hub article?

Option 1 (from revision 864273518):

Sci-Hub is a website with over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download. It bypasses publisher paywalls by allowing access through educational institution proxies. Sci-Hub stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

Option 2 (from revision 864287916):

Sci-Hub is the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles. It bypasses publisher paywalls by illegally using educational institution proxies, after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

Option 3 (current version):

Sci-Hub is a website which claims to have over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download. It is stated to be the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles. It bypasses publisher paywalls by using educational institution proxies with credentials to which the site is not entitled, after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

As "sci-hub.tw" is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, I've removed the URL from the citation in Option 1. You can see the original citation in revision 864273518.

References

If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Sci-Hub#Request for comment on opening paragraph. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

New draft at Saylor Academy

Greetings! A few weeks ago I offered a new draft of Saylor Academy in my user space and at Talk:Saylor_Academy#New_draft_available. For those at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open not familiar with Saylor Academy, it offers free and open online courses. The whole article could use a rewrite, but I recommend we can start by developing a History section.

As a member of MicroStrategy's digital marketing team, I am the company's current sole representative on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia rules of engagement, I will not be making edits to MicroStrategy-related articles and will be making suggestions on article discussion pages. Can someone with experience editing articles on open educational resources review this request?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Open source etc

Recently I've been improving open source articles. I vastly improved the Open source disambiguation page and redirected "Open source" (with and without dash) to it. This triggered more than double Wikipedia's entire number of disambiguation-link alerts. A conversation ensued on my talk page now relocated to Talk:Open source where we're considering changing the disambiguation page into a WP:broad concept article to resolve the disambiguation-link issues. I'm not sure I'm up to the task, much less able to quickly do it properly. Assistance would be appreciated, if we go that direction (see the discussion). My hopes are that among the BCA examples, many of which are not good, a revised Open source BCA article may end up closer to the Supreme court, Southern United States, or Football examples that are long, filled with information and diverse tools of communication (lists, graphs, charts, images, etc). (Personally, I think most Wikipedia articles are too short and lack substance, especially about important matters. I mean if they can create a simple version in plain words, they could easily accommodate and create more wiki versions like languages or just add tabs for "stubs-only" (short, truncated, or opening paragraphs), "fancruft" and "fringe", and/or make more expandable collapsing sections.) Anyway, I wrote the WebTorrent article and intend to work on more Decentralized web articles but "they" are guarding (censoring) them. The IPFS article is disgracefully lacking as is Filecoin and they won't let me add libp2p, IPLD, and Multiformats which are all inter-related Protocol Labs projects that are potentially huge game changers. I like the idea of cryptocurrencies but it is not my main focus. I'm FAR more enthusiastic about the potential of alternative solutions, decentralized web, and freedom from the tyranny and censorship of the corporatocracy. I think all cryptocurrency articles should be allowed so that folks may call out the scams rather than leave everyone in the dark - an actual practical use of centralized information. There are as many scams as governments and evil corporations (not censored) but most scammers are not waging war, polluting, taxing, vote scamming, etc. Anyway, please ping me if anyone responds or I won't know. Also, ping me if there's something else I should be aware of. I'll try to check back here if I don't forget. Thanks in advance. Good luck with this project. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Open source listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Open source to be moved to Open source (disambiguation). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual property education listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Intellectual property education to be moved to Intellectual property and copyright education. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Draft:Intellectual property education listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Draft:Intellectual property education to be moved to Intellectual property and copyright education. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Plan S feedback request

The Plan S open-access initiative is requesting feedback about itself on questions that may be of interest to people here:

1. Is there anything unclear or are there any issues that have not been addressed by the [Plan S] guidance document?
2. Are there other mechanisms or requirements funders should consider to foster full and immediate Open Access of research outputs?

Feedback is open until the 8th of February.

The plan launched in September and has a large proportion of European research funders and a couple of US ones onside; if you are affiliated with a research funder, they might want to look into it. The best comment on Plan S I've heard so far comes from Elsevier (which doesn't really like the financial transparency provisions, for starters). An Elsevier spokesman said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia" ("Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia"). I'm not sure if he knew about the journals published here.

Is there a good place to point academics who want to ga-naar-Wikipedia? I'm thinking of a how-to for people unfamiliar with wiki authoring who want to collaboratively edit a paper here (whether they eventually publish it here or elsewhere). Or on starting an open lab notebook here, or posting a post-print to Wikisource. Our metadata could make that last very findable, if properly formatted with Wikiversity:Template:Article info (which, oddly, does not seem to exist on WikiSource). If there is no such resource, where would be a good place to put it? HLHJ (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You can contribute to the consensus feedback statement. HLHJ (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Canadian Research Publication academic journals

There is a discussion concerning container categories for predatory journals. Please participate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

GIMP listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for GIMP to be moved to GIMP (software). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WP:SOURCEWATCH Launch

See this Signpost article that was published yesterday. This has been the results of nearly 9 months of efforts. Feel free to share the article (and the WP:SOURCEWATCH link) to relevant people and communities you may know! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Copyright implications of links to CiteSeerX

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 12:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Opposition to copyright listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Opposition to copyright to be moved to Criticism of copyright. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

9/4/19 Nliz 17:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nliz (talk • contribs)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If know of missing newsletters (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Grant proposal to build a way of surveying, assessing and integrating large amounts of open license text into Wikipedia

Hi all

Over the past few years I’ve been working on ways to make it easier to reuse open license text from external sources in Wikipedia. I’ve created very easy to use instructions and a metrics tool for open license text (much like our tools for image views).

I think that there is huge potential in the ability to use existing text written by experts in Wikipedia, the volume of available content is huge. There are over 13,000 open access journals and many organisations make their websites available under open license e.g UNESCO’s 1.5 million page website will soon be available under CC BY-SA.

However we lack a way to systematically survey, assess and integrate large amounts of open license text into Wikipedia, which is going to take a lot of work to design. I’ve been working with an intern at UNESCO to put together a grant proposal for her to do the research and work with the community to design and create this tool, we would really appreciate your endorsements and suggestions, if you’d like to be involved please mention this in your endorsement.

• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/AlmaMaK/OER_tool_and_documentation

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a really good proposal, John, and your recent stagiare looks as if she is fully capable of handling it - with you assistance of course.--Ipigott (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Knoema up for deletion

• Knoema (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This is a huge repository of data and statistics. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Predatory open-access publishing listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Predatory open-access publishing to be moved to Predatory publishing. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposal to reduce links to PubMed Central

Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#RfC_on_linking_title_to_PMC proposes to make the links to PMC less visible. Nemo 10:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

COnnecting REpositories listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for COnnecting REpositories to be moved to CORE. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15

Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Bot proposal to add more open access identifiers

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3. Nemo 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The bot trial has completed and we'd use more eyeballs to comment on its possible approval. Nemo 10:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright implications of links to CiteSeerX

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 10:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding task force for Aaron Swartz Hackathons

• Working today on organizing the output of recent Aaron Swartz Day hackathons -- I'm putting them for now at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open/Aaron_Swartz_Day. – SJ + 19:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Curlie / DMOZ move, rewrite

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:DMOZ#Requested move 21 February 2020, a move and rewrite proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Freebase listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Freebase to be moved to Freebase (database). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

FreeBSD GA reassessment

FreeBSD, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Auto-linking titles with free DOIs

Please see the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Auto-linking titles with free DOIs. Nemo 13:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Free software license listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Free software license to be moved to Free-software license. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Merger proposal of WikiProject Open Access into WikiProject Open

There is significant overlap between WikiProject Open and WikiProject Open Access. In fact, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open Access has been redirecting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open (this page) since December 2013.

Combining these two relatively inactive projects would hopefully form a more active project, and would be consistent with how the talk page has been shared between the two projects for the past 6.5 years. As the scope of WikiProject Open Access (open access publishing) is a subset of the scope of WikiProject Open, the most appropriate merge target is WikiProject Open. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Mbdfar (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Merge as Task Force. Given the different levels of scope the WikiProject Open Access and WikiProject Open I don't agree that Open Access should be absorbed by WikiProject Open as that would lead to a loss of resolution of scope, but WikiProject Open Access does seem to be a natural fit to be merged as a Task Force of WikiProject Open. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good solution. If there are no objections, I'll proceed with converting WikiProject Open Access into a task force in a week. — Newslinger talk 06:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  WikiProject Open Access has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task force. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of tweaking to do whatever it is - see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:WikiProject_Open_articles - inactive - and if open source is going to be a task force it has much better structure for assessment that the current open format - well worth doing something to clean things up... JarrahTree 15:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of cleanup work to be done, and any help would be appreciated! I'll gradually address issues as I find them, but I expect this to be a long-term task. — Newslinger talk 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

and for whatever intuition I have on the issue - the mix is the wrong way around - I would have done it the other way - for very complicated reasons no need to explain here - but there are so few discussing any of this it is as bizarre as intelligence being absorbed into espionage - but hey this is wikipedia - so be it. JarrahTree 02:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Focus list for OA

Hello. Here is a provisional focus list in Wikidata for the Open Access Task Force. Additions/changes welcome.

• TABernacle
• WDQS (Wikidata query)

-- Oa01 (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Frontiers Media request

Hello, I have suggested updates to Frontiers Media's list of journals (open access scientific journals) at Talk:Frontiers_Media#List_of_journals. Do any editors at this WikiProject care to vet these potential updates? I do not edit the article myself because I am an employee at Frontiers Media.

Best, JBFrontiers (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: adding a parameter for references with open content licenses

Here it has been proposed to add an access level to the |doi-access= parameter of citation templates (or to add a new parameter similar to it) for the license of reference:

Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 73#About adding libre access level

It could be set by a bot and/or automatic parsing/filling by the citations/Autofill/reFill tool similar to the existing |doi-access=free parameter for everything that's licensed under public domain or CC BY and look like this:

Kawaguchi, Yuko; et al. (26 August 2020). "DNA Damage and Survival Time Course of Deinococcal Cell Pellets During 3 Years of Exposure to Outer Space". Frontiers in Microbiology. 11. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.02050. PMID 32983036. S2CID 221300151.

It would convey additional useful info about the reference. I'd use these to find study references which have images that I could upload to Wikimedia Commons but there are many other possible use-cases.

(For example this could also be used to find media that could be added or attached to an article or references that could be embedded/attached to the Wikipedia (article) otherwise (like a pdf of the entire reference).)

What do you think?

--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Yes I want this information to be available, but logistically after years of discussion I feel that management of this on Wikipedia will not be the way forward. The general reason why Wikipedia is not the place is (1) super labor intensive and does not scale while (2) Wikidata has a system for automating this and also provides a means for fixing citations in this way for all language Wikipedias and the broader off-wiki world.

Check out d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData and meta:Wikicite. There are no active development projects in each, but I think 100s of people participating in those projects would agree with your general proposal only in Wikidata. There are lots of mini-discussions to have about implementation if you want to get involved or make progress. Typical participants are curating citations in Wikidata for specialized fields, anticipating a more organized future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Bluerasberry: I also think the best way would be via WikiData. I learned that this is already being worked on with (e.g.?) {{Cite Q}}. In my last reply at the linked discussion I noted that I think of this as the optimal solution. Well, at least a way towards how the imo optimal solution could be built (just to clarify).

Thanks for those links! These are very interesting projects.
I'd just hope the WMF / Wikipedia website governance would attract more developers and developer-time so things like these get the attention and effort they need to get implemented soon. (And doing so wouldn't require any money, any controversial decision or lots of time but only maybe a weekend's worth of time of one WMF person.)

Some short further details on what I'd envision as an optimal solution and which is probably close to / what these projects intend to build:

• a (non-fake/actually useful) Web 3.0, semantic Web-enabling scraper, aggregator and identifier for scientific studies (and later potentially almost anything) in WikiData which integrates e.g. altmetrics, citations and (other) comments/responses and automatically aggregates all sorts of (other) meta-information about the study including its license (instead of bots cluttering watchlists by doing so for references within articles) and
• a way to then use a reference by simple e.g. "Qid" within Wikipedia and with the usual autofill reference toolbar which would not generate the text for Wikipedia but instead autofill the Wikidata item, display it to the user and only insert the "Qid" into the Wikipedia article which is then displayed similar to current references (one could then e.g. toggle additional meta-information about the study like its license as suggested if it's not displayed directly). In the case of studies, the integrated altmetrics could be used to easily show news-articles about it. Parameters could allow reusing the same reference within a single article or across articles in different ways – such as by including quotes of the relevant parts of the study or by highlighting relevant parts of the study.

I'll check what exactly these projects are about and discussing and will put forward my ideas there. While I don't think I'll be able to currently help coding them any time soon, I hope I can help increasing the number by developers, which really wouldn't be difficult and as far as I can see only a matter of deciding to do so. I don't think small scraping or scrapers for small numbers of or even individual citations is useful for building this except for early testing: it would only work / be useful by enabling autofilling and a script to convert all existing references. Rewriting autofill to write to WikiData instead of the Wikitext would probably the first and not-too-difficult first step to implement this.

Maybe participants of WikiProject Open are interested in this as well(?)
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: Check out what you like and ask questions if you wish.

My first thought on what you are saying is that several hundred people over the past 10+ years have been way off in their estimates about what this would take. You say "maybe a weekend's worth of time of one WMF person" - the current estimate is for what you describe is $US3-5 million over 3+ years.

Here is why "Rewriting autofill to write to WikiData instead of the Wikitext" is complicated - d:Wikidata:WikiCite/Roadmap

Here is the most developed proposal for connecting a system like Qid to Wikipedia - meta:WikiCite/Shared Citations

"semantic Web-enabling scraper, aggregator and identifier for scientific studies" - these are unrelated projects, and not just three projects, but many, and there are 10+ of these in progress

"altmetrics, citations and (other) comments/responses and automatically aggregates" again these are unrelated, but for citations at least check out d:Wikidata:Scholia which is a project I document

I know this is a lot to take in. I assure you that you are asking all the right questions and your ideas are spot on about where we need to be. There is yet more documentation available if ask. I encourage you in exploring all this and finding an aspect of it that interests you, because any of these things could use additional community comment or review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bluerasberry: With a weekend's worth of time I was referring to a solution to the lack of developer resources. I'm pretty sure something close to what I'm thinking of could be done within a few hours (it's that easy and obvious) – but a weekend would result in a more adequate, targeted solution (and one could spend a few more days to improve landing pages and improve incentives for developers to get and remain engaged etc but imo this should have been done years ago and just get repeated yearly in improved forms).

Thanks for those links! Really interesting and very useful, I'll look into this.

I'm not sure why you're saying that those are unrelated projects – wouldn't they populate this Wikidata database of citations? And altmetrics could be integrated there as well – hence insofar it's related. I've recently explored Scholia a bit and it's an exciting project as well – I probably have to check which of the ideas would apply to Scholia and which to Autofill/Wikidata/WikiCite/etc and whether or how these could be combined/integrated. As described, the embedded citation retrieved from Wikidata would have ways to show additional information which could include altmetrics (note there could be different altmetrics-algorithms – they could even be made configurable with varying weights applied to different factors) and such could be e.g. either retrieved from Scholia or Scholia could retrieve it from Wikidata. It may be good if one could easily navigate to the full Scholia page from the "rendered" Qid in articles.

Glad to hear that. I keep on being engaged with science overall in related ways as I'm continuing contributing to and making summaries based on year/2021 in science – so I keep getting ideas for what may be useful for editors, readers and society in general in respect to science and science communication etc. (still got to work on these and check what the community/ies are proposing and working on). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Societal views on patents listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Societal views on patents to be moved to Criticism of patents. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

When is open government data reliable? or unreliable?

I've started an essay about the reliability of open government data and "official" versus "reliable" data. I'm very much in favour of open data. But just as there are predatory journals that give open access research a bad name, there is also a risk in assuming that open data is necessarily reliable. In particular, there is peer review research suggesting that in the COVID-19 pandemic pages we are currently providing disinformation for several countries, even though this is unintentional. The reasons and possible alternatives are not trivial issues, which is why I think an essay is appropriate to see if arguments for and against possible ways to handle this disinformation can emerge. Please feel free to improve the essay. Boud (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Arabeyes up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Arabeyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Open source publisher trying to aid Arab language users with their computers etc. It was established in early 2001 by a number of Arab Linux enthusiasts. Trying to find sources is hampered by the presumed language of sources. Arabic language speakers needed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

COnnecting REpositories listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for COnnecting REpositories to be moved to CORE (research service). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Copyright Term Extension Act listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Copyright Term Extension Act to be moved to Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Faculty of 1000 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Faculty of 1000 to be moved to F1000. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Faculty of 1000 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Faculty of 1000 to be moved to F1000 (publisher). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Open-source software listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Open-source software to be moved to Open software. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Open-source hardware listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Open-source hardware to be moved to Open hardware. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Open-source governance listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Open-source governance to be moved to Open gorvenance. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Free content listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Free content to be moved to Open content. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Comparison of free and open-source software licences listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Comparison of free and open-source software licences to be moved to Comparison of free and open-source software licenses. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Massive open online course listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Massive open online course to be moved to Open online course. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Funding of science listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Funding of science to be moved to Research funding. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act to be moved to FOSTA-SESTA. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals

Please comment. This is related to the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects, of interest to this project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)