DOCSLIB.ORG

Wikipedia Initiative SOPA and PIPA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wikipedia Initiative SOPA and PIPA Wikipedia Initiative SOPA and PIPA PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:40:04 UTC Contents Articles Wikipedia:SOPA initiative 1 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action 168 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas 313 SOPA and PIPA - Learn more 322 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Post-blackout activities and initiatives 325 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Blackout screen designs 327 Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 January 19 339 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Proposed Messages 347 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Post-blackout activities and initiatives/UK petition 371 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/UN 374 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Take action 375 Wikipedia:Access2Research 379 Protests against SOPA and PIPA 383 PROTECT IP Act 400 Stop Online Piracy Act 409 References Article Sources and Contributors 433 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 436 Article Licenses License 437 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative 1 Wikipedia:SOPA initiative For more information on the proposed law itself, see SOPA To see the conclusion of the community discussion, skip down to this section For post-blackout news, initatives and discussion, see /Post-blackout activities and initiatives This is a project page to determine what action is required on the part of the Wikipedia community regarding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and our response to it (if any). Jimmy Wales asked for community input [1] on a possible database lock, similar to what the Italian Wikipedia did in October 2011 in response to a proposed bill in the Parliament of Italy. Although opinion is divided on the issue, there appears to be broad support that some form of response is needed. This is a workshop to explore various alternatives. The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here. Voice your support or opposition to the proposals by voting. You may also display a userbox on your userpage with the {{SOPA}} template. Updates on SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN January 23, 2012 - Senator Leahy made a statement urging the Senate to pass PIPA. From Politico: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) isn’t backing down from his fight for Congress to pass anti-piracy legislation and said on the Senate floor today he hopes “that in the coming days the Senate will focus on stopping that theft that is undercutting our economic recovery.” Leahy said he regretted the Senate will not be proceeding with its cloture vote on the PROTECT IP Act, stressing that online piracy costs jobs and poses a risk to public safety. He added that “misinformation” was spread on the Web about what the bill would accomplish. “My hope is that after a brief delay, we will, together, confront this problem,” Leahy said. Senator Leahy's full statement is available on his website [2]. For more information, see Sen. Leahy Isn’t Giving Up On PIPA Yet [3], Talking Points Memo. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC) January 20, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) said that he is postponing consideration of the bill in response to concerns from critics who said the bill could lead to censorship. He stated:[4] "I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy," Smith said in a statement. "It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products." In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said he would delay the vote scheduled for Tuesday to begin consideration until the Senate Judiciary Committee could make more progress. "We made good progress through the discussions we’ve held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks," Reid said.[4] January 17, 2012 - Representative Lamar Smith announced that he expects SOPA markup to continue in February. Here is Rep. Smith's full statement [5]: To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members Wikipedia:SOPA initiative 2 to find ways to combat online piracy. Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February. I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property. As TechDirt predicted [6], earlier claims of SOPA's death were premature. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC) January 16, 2012 - Mike Masnick from TechDirt explains the current status of SOPA and PIPA: Issa's office put out a press release Friday night with Cantor's comments (I can pass along the press release if you'd like). Others have confirmed that Cantor has said that and that he's "serious" about not bringing it to the floor any time soon, though he has not made a public statement. As for PIPA... Just yesterday, Reid reiterated his plans to bring the bill to the floor, saying that it was important for "jobs" even as he admitted that the "recent" concerns brought up by "Google & Facebook" are legitimate and he's worried about the impact the bill will have on the internet. But, he also claimed, he's working with Dianne Feinstein to sort out all the problems, since she represents both Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Kinda crazy since Feinstein, just weeks ago, insisted that no one in tech was upset about the bill... The New York Times [7] has more on last week's developments in the SOPA and PIPA debate. - Stephen LaPorte (WMF) 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC) January 14, 2012 - The official Whitehouse response to SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN [8] recognizes that piracy and rogue sites pose a risk to the U.S. economy. The Administration will only support legislation that avoids censorship of legal activity, allows innovation, and does not damage the architecture of the internet. The statement calls for stakeholders to provide input on new legislation to prevent and prosecute piracy originating outside of the U.S. - Slaporte (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC) See Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Ideas. As the foremost user generated web site in the world, Wikipedia should provide Congress with ideas, recommendations and feedback. Jehochman Talk 20:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC) For more recent media, see the media page and legislative timeline. The legal understanding Below is a copy of a post [9], made by Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Geoff Brigham. Posted by Geoff on December 13th, 2011 For the past several days, Wikipedia editors have been discussing [10] whether to stage a protest against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). I’ve been asked to give some comments on the bill and explain what effect the proposed legislation might have on a free and open Internet as well as Wikipedia. My goal in this blog post is to provide some information and interpretation that I hope will be helpful to Wikipedia editors as they discuss the bill. SOPA has earned the dubious honor of facilitating Internet censorship in the name of fighting online infringement. The Wikimedia Foundation opposed that legislation [11], but we should be clear that Wikimedia has an equally strong commitment against copyright violations. The Wikimedia community, which has developed an unparalleled expertise in intellectual property law, spends untold hours ensuring that our sites are free of infringing content. In a community that embraces freely-licensed information, there is no room for copyright abuses. We cannot battle, however, one wrong while inflicting another. SOPA represents the flawed proposition that censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners' private interests in particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the United States as a response to remove from sight select Wikipedia:SOPA initiative 3 infringing material. This is so even when other programs like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have found better balances without the use of such a bludgeon. For this reason, we applaud the excellent work of a number of like-minded organizations that are leading the charge against this legislation, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation [12], Public Knowledge [13], Creative Commons [14], Center for Democracy and Technology [15], NetCoalition [16], the Internet Society [17], AmericanCensorship.org [18], and others. On Tuesday, after receiving input on the original version of the bill [19], the House Judiciary Committee issued a new version of SOPA [20] for its mark-up scheduled for this coming Thursday. A vote on that mark-up may take place on the same day. At the end of this article, I provide a summary of the most relevant parts of this new version of SOPA as well as a summary of the legislative process (which you can also follow here [21]). In honesty, this new version of the bill is better (and credit goes to the Judiciary staff for that). But, it continues to suffer from the same structural pitfalls, including its focus on blocking entire international sites based on U.S.-based allegations of specific infringement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Index of /Sites/Default/Al Direct/2012/June
    AL Direct, June 6, 2012 Contents American Libraries Online | ALA News | Booklist Online Anaheim Update | Division News | Awards & Grants | Libraries in the News Issues | Tech Talk | E-Content | Books & Reading | Tips & Ideas Great Libraries of the World | Digital Library of the Week | Calendar The e-newsletter of the American Library Association | June 6, 2012 American Libraries Online Transforming libraries—and ALA— continued When Maureen Sullivan becomes ALA president on June 26, one thing that is certain to continue ALA Annual Conference, from Molly Raphael’s presidency is the thematic Anaheim, June 21–26. If focus on transforming libraries. “Our shared you can’t attend the vision around community engagement and whole ALA Annual transforming libraries will move forward without a break,” Raphael Conference, the Exhibits said. She added that ALA is uniquely positioned to contribute to Only passes starting at efforts underway all over the country—indeed the world—to transform $25 are ideal. In addition libraries into places that engage with the communities they serve.... to the 800+ booths to American Libraries feature explore, the advance Happy Birthday, Prop. 13 reading copy giveaways, the many authors, and Beverly Goldberg writes: “Proposition 13, the the knowledgeable California property tax–cap initiative that unleashed vendors, you can enjoy an era of fervent antitax sentiment and activism dozens of events. You can across the US, is 34 years old today. It wasn’t that attend ALA Poster Californians had tired of government services, Sessions, visit the ALA explains Cody White in his award-winning essay in Conference Store, or drop Libraries & the Cultural Record.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategische Und Operative Handlungsoptionen Für Wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen Zur Gestaltung Der Open-Access-Transformation
    ! ! ! !"#$"%&'()*%+,-.+/0%#$"'1%+2$-.3,-&(/0"'/-%-+ 45#+6'((%-()*$4"3')*%+7'-#')*",-&%-+8,#+ 9%("$3",-&+.%#+:0%-;<))%((;=#$-(4/#>$"'/-+ ! "#$$%&'('#)*! "#$!%$&'()#()!*+,!'-'*+./,01+(!2$'*+,! ")+')&!,-#.)$),-#(%! /"&0!,-#.01! ! +/()+$+/013! '(!*+$!41/&5,561/,01+(!7'-#&383! *+$!9#.:5&*3;<(/=+$,/383!"#!>+$&/(! ! =5(!9+/("!4'.6+&! ! ! ?/+!4$8,/*+(3/(!*+$!9#.:5&*3;<(/=+$,/383!"#!>+$&/(@!! 4$5AB!?$B;C()B!?$B!D':/(+!E#(,3! ! ?/+!?+-'(/(!*+$!41/&5,561/,01+(!7'-#&383@! 4$5AB!?$B!2':$/+&+!F+3"&+$! ! ! 2#3'013+$! %$,3)#3'013+$@!! ! 4$5AB!?$B!4+3+$!D01/$.:'01+$! GH+/3)#3'013+$@!! 4$5AB!?$B!I5&A$'.!95$,3.'((! ! ?'3#.!*+$!?/,6#3'3/5(@!JKB!F'/!LMLJ! !"#$%&'()*+),-#",'. G#,'..+(A',,#()!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NC! O:,3$'03!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NCC! ?'(-,')#()!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!NCCC! O:-P$"#(),=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!CQ! R':+&&+(=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!QCC! O::/&*#(),=+$"+/01(/,!BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!QCCC!
    [Show full text]
  • List of Search Engines
    A blog network is a group of blogs that are connected to each other in a network. A blog network can either be a group of loosely connected blogs, or a group of blogs that are owned by the same company. The purpose of such a network is usually to promote the other blogs in the same network and therefore increase the advertising revenue generated from online advertising on the blogs.[1] List of search engines From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For knowing popular web search engines see, see Most popular Internet search engines. This is a list of search engines, including web search engines, selection-based search engines, metasearch engines, desktop search tools, and web portals and vertical market websites that have a search facility for online databases. Contents 1 By content/topic o 1.1 General o 1.2 P2P search engines o 1.3 Metasearch engines o 1.4 Geographically limited scope o 1.5 Semantic o 1.6 Accountancy o 1.7 Business o 1.8 Computers o 1.9 Enterprise o 1.10 Fashion o 1.11 Food/Recipes o 1.12 Genealogy o 1.13 Mobile/Handheld o 1.14 Job o 1.15 Legal o 1.16 Medical o 1.17 News o 1.18 People o 1.19 Real estate / property o 1.20 Television o 1.21 Video Games 2 By information type o 2.1 Forum o 2.2 Blog o 2.3 Multimedia o 2.4 Source code o 2.5 BitTorrent o 2.6 Email o 2.7 Maps o 2.8 Price o 2.9 Question and answer .
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Journal of Innovation Management Mention, Ferreira, Torkkeli JIM 4, 1 (2016) 1-5 HANDLE: http://hdl.handle.net/10216/84410 Editorial The Democratization of Science: Blue Ocean or Chimera? Anne-Laure Mention1, João José Pinto Ferreira2, Marko Torkkeli3 1Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Visiting Professor & Deputy Director of Centre d'étude de la Performance des Entreprises University of Liège; 2INESC TEC - INESC Technology and Science and FEUP - Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal; 3Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland; [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Knowledge builds on itself. Scientific progress is achieved through piecewise advances, and is based on the enlightenment of prior evidence and discoveries. Accessing prior information has been a tremendously complex venture for centuries, and restricted to the privileged few. Technological progress and namely, the advent of Internet have opened a world of possibilities, including the instant sharing and diffusion of information. Reaping the full benefits of technological advances has however been prevented by the prerogatives of the publishing industry, which have been increasingly challenged over the last two decades. Major historical milestones include the creation of ArXiv.org, an online repository of electronic preprints in 1991; the launch of SciELO in Brazil in 1997 and its extension to 14 countries; the foundation of PLOS by the Public Library of Science, established as an alternative to traditional publishing and nowadays known as PLOS ONE, which is by far the world’s largest series of journals with over 30,000 papers published in 2015; the Budapest Declaration on Open Access in 2002; the campaign Access2Research and the US Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act, a foundational piece in the establishment of Open Access in the USA; and the initiative of the European Commission to require all research publications funded under Horizon2020 to be openly accessible, free of charge.
    [Show full text]
  • Paywalls and the Public Rationale for Open Access Medical Research Publishing Suzanne Day1* , Stuart Rennie2,3, Danyang Luo4 and Joseph D
    Day et al. Research Involvement and Engagement (2020) 6:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y COMMENTARY Open Access Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing Suzanne Day1* , Stuart Rennie2,3, Danyang Luo4 and Joseph D. Tucker1,5,6 Abstract Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.
    [Show full text]
  • Peering Into Open Access and Watching It All Come Unglued
    Portland State University PDXScholar Library Faculty Publications and Presentations University Library 7-1-2012 Heard on the Net: You Can’t Always Get What You Want: PEERing into Open Access and Watching It All Come UnGlued Jill Emery Portland State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ulib_fac Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Emery, Jill (2011). Heard on the Net: You Can’t Always Get What You Want: PEERing into Open Access and Watching It All Come UnGlued. The Charleston Advisor. 14 (1), 55-56. This Article is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Library Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. The Charleston Advisor / July 2012 www.charlestonco.com 55 ADVISOR REPORTS FROM THE FIELD Heard on the Net You Can’t Always Get What You Want: PEERing into Open Access and Watching It All Come UnGlued doi:10.5260/chara.14.1.55 By Jill Emery (Collections Librarian, Portland State University) <[email protected]> n 31 May 2012, the PEER Project ended. PEER (Publishing little use of the search facilities on repository or publisher sites, rely- Oand the Ecology of European Research, <http://www.peerproj- ing heavily instead on third-party gateways and general search en- ect.eu/>) investigated the effects of large-scale, systematic depositing gines. They do not choose to `log on’ to repository or publisher data- of authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts (Green Open Access) on bases, they are simply swept there by Google and other agents which reader access, author visibility, and journal viability, as well as on the are the scholarly equivalents of the remote control TV handset.
    [Show full text]
  • Albertopen Blog Zu Wissenschaftlichem Publizieren 2010–2018
    ALBERTopen Blog zu wissenschaftlichem Publizieren 2010–2018 ALBERTopen Warum ALBERTopen? Mo, 28 Jun 2010 14:13:09, admin, [category: forschungsdaten, category: literaturverwaltung, category: open-access, category: publizieren, category: verlagswesen, category: zeitschriften] Elektronisches Publizieren, sich verändernde Verlagslandschaften, in den Fokus rückende Forschungsdaten Die dynamische Entwicklung der digitaler Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie eröffnet Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre Chancen und Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Wissen und Information. "ALBERTopen" soll interessierten Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern die Möglichkeit geben Entwicklungen, Diskussionen und Werkzeuge in diesem Feld intensiver zu verfolgen. Der Blog will nicht nur informieren, sondern auch Raum für Diskussion bieten. Wir freuen uns über Anregungen, Fragen und Ideen. Zielgruppe sind alle Interessierten auf dem Telegrafenberg. Der Titel des Blogs "ALBERTopen" ist an die Suchmaschine "ALBERT" der Bibliothek des Wissenschaftspark Albert Einstein angelehnt. Das Wissensportal ALBERT bietet eine gemeinsame, übergreifende Suche in wissenschaftlichen Inhalten (unabhängig von der Kategorisierung als gedrucktes oder elektronisches Buch, als Zeitschrift, als Aufsatz aus verschiedenen Quellen - und impliziert Forschungsdaten). Entsprechend wollen wir in diesem Blog einen offenen, weiten Blick auf den laufenden Veränderungsprozess im gesamten Feld des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens bieten. Der Begriff "open" betont darüber hinaus das Potenzial
    [Show full text]
  • Empowering Knowledge™
    Elsevier at a Glance Empowering Knowledge™ Empowering Knowledge™ Technological advancement and the data revolution have pushed the boundaries of science and medicine. Discoveries unimaginable a generation ago are uncovered every day. At Elsevier, we recognize the potential for scientists and clinicians to find new answers, reshape human knowledge and tackle the most urgent global crises. We want to make analysis easier for everyone working in science and medicine, enabling them to manage their work more efficiently and spend more time making breakthroughs. That’s why Elsevier is evolving. Growing from our roots in publishing, we’re creating analytical solutions to serve the needs of science and health. 3 Opportunities abound Elsevier employs over 1,500 technologists. We work with cutting-edge technologies to create analytics solutions that help advance science, technology and healthcare. Machine learning Elsevier also applies advanced machine- learning techniques that detect trending topics per domain, helping researchers make more informed decisions. Coupled with the automated profiling and extraction of funding body information from scientific articles, this process supports the whole researcher journey, from planning to execution and funding. 83% Similarly, in health, Elsevier is developing clinical decision support applications that of our revenue comes from utilize cognitive technologies to map digital products. patient and claims data sets and large image and text content repositories. 4 Craig C. Mello physiology/medicine, 2006 Françoise Barré-Sinoussi physiology/medicine, 2008 Elizabeth H. Blackburn physiology/medicine, 2009 Masatoshi Koshiba physics, 2002 Finn E. Kydland economics, 2004 Leonid Hurwicz economics, 2007 Since the year 2000, more than 99% of the Nobel Laureates in science have published in Elsevier journals.
    [Show full text]
  • Access Tools and Services to Open Access: DOAR, ROAR, SHERPA-ROMEO, SPARC and DOAJ
    Informatics Studies. ISSN 2320 – 530X. Vol. 4, Issue 3 Third Quarterly Issue. July – September, 2017. P 05-20 Access Tools and Services to Open Access: DOAR, ROAR, SHERPA-ROMEO, SPARC and DOAJ Helen Nneka Okpala Abstract The paper presents the concept and background of Open Access (OA) as well as its benefits. Librarians as information gatekeepers are enjoined to register in the advocacy of OA in a bid to promote scholarly communication and also aid in the building up of institutional repositories. Self Archiving (Green Access) and Open Access Journals (Gold Access) as proposed by the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) are discussed. Describes selected access tools and services to Open Access to explain the topic. Concludes by describing the influence of Open Access movement among information service professionals in Nigeria, and the raising awareness among scholars about self-archiving and Open Access journals. Keywords: Open Access, Green Access, Golden Access, self-archiving, BOAI, OAI-PMH, Z39.50, Nigeria. Introduction digital in nature (e-prints). Why are Open Access works only digital? This question was In universities today, we talk of Open Access thrown by Suber (2013) which he answered to documents of research not just for people by stating that ‘after the creation of the first to peruse and see the local contents of the digital copy of a work, the cost of creating university but also for image boosting of additional copies and distributing them on the university. This entails that such the Internet is marginal. This contrasts with documents can be viewed by virtually paper-based publishing, which not only anybody that finds his or her way to the entails meaningful paper-copy production institution’s repository.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography
    El Khatib, Randa, et al. 2019. Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography. KULA: knowledge creation, dissemination, and preservation studies 3(1): 24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/kula.58 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Social Scholarship Annotated Bibliography Randa El Khatib, Lindsey Seatter, Tracey El Hajj, Conrad Leibel, Alyssa Arbuckle, Ray Siemens, Caroline Winter, the ETCL and INKE Research Groups Electronic Textual Cultures Lab, University of Victoria, CA Corresponding author: Lindsey Seatter ([email protected]) This annotated bibliography responds to and contextualizes the growing ‘Open’ movements and recent institutional reorientation towards social, public-facing scholarship. The aim of this document is to present a working definition of open social scholarship through the aggregation and summation of critical resources in the field. Our work surveys foundational publications, innovative research projects, and global organizations that enact the theories and practices of open social scholarship. The bibliography builds on the knowledge creation principles outlined in previous research by broadening the focus beyond conventional academic spaces and reinvigorating central, defining themes with recently published research. Keywords: community; open; scholarship; social; technology Introduction: Open Social Scholarship, Theory and Practice In his monograph A Social History of Knowledge (2000), Peter Burke defends the sociality of knowledge by conducting a systematic look at knowledge production from the early modern period until today. Burke argues that knowledge is always plural and demonstrates this multiplicity by exploring knowledge production in religious, scholarly, and governmental institutions. Similarly, in The Nature of the Book (1998), Adrian Johns uncovers the social history of print by drawing attention to the various—often unseen—labours of knowledge construction.
    [Show full text]
  • White House Petitioned to Make Research Free to Access Other Science Agencies Should Follow NIH Policy, Say Campaigners
    NATURE | NEWS White House petitioned to make research free to access Other science agencies should follow NIH policy, say campaigners. Zoë Corbyn 25 May 2012 More than 17,000 people have signed an online petition urging US President Barack Obama to require all scientific journal articles resulting from US taxpayer-funded research to be made freely available online. The signatures, obtained within a week of the petition's launch after an active social media campaign, put it over two-thirds of the way towards the threshold that will require an official response from the White House. It comes as the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) — one of the largest biomedical institutions in the United States — becomes the latest institution to require its researchers to make their articles freely available in an open-access repository. However, they can opt out if it brings them into conflict with publishers. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and various Harvard University schools are among those with similar policies in place. The petition, on the White House website, was launched by Access2Research, a group of four open-access advocates who were frustrated by the lack of progress on the issue and so are trying a new tack. The petition urges the president to “act now to implement open access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific research”. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, is the only US government agency that requires researchers to deposit their articles in the agency's PubMed Central online archive within 12 months of publication, a policy that followed a bill passed by Congress in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • The Academic, Economic and Societal Impacts of Open
    F1000Research 2016, 5:632 Last updated: 24 JUL 2020 REVIEW The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review [version 2; peer review: 4 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Jonathan P. Tennant 1, François Waldner 2, Damien C. Jacques 2, Paola Masuzzo 3,4, Lauren B. Collister 5, Chris. H. J. Hartgerink6 1Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK 2Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium 3Medical Biotechnology Center, VIB, Ghent, Belgium 4Department of Biochemistry, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium 5University Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 6Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands First published: 11 Apr 2016, 5:632 Open Peer Review v2 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.1 Second version: 09 Jun 2016, 5:632 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.2 Reviewer Status Latest published: 21 Sep 2016, 5:632 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3 Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 5 Abstract Ongoing debates surrounding Open Access to the scholarly literature are version 3 multifaceted and complicated by disparate and often polarised viewpoints (revision) report from engaged stakeholders. At the current stage, Open Access has 21 Sep 2016 become such a global issue that it is critical for all involved in scholarly publishing, including policymakers, publishers, research funders, governments, learned societies, librarians, and academic communities, to version 2 be well-informed on the history, benefits, and pitfalls of Open Access. In (revision) report report report report spite of this, there is a general lack of consensus regarding the potential 09 Jun 2016 pros and cons of Open Access at multiple levels.
    [Show full text]