Dear Paul,
I'm not talking of impediments to Wikipedia, but of licenses unsuitable
to reach the academics' own goals. Are you talking about green open
access perhaps? I'm talking about open access journals.
For instance these:
<https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filtered%22%3A%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22_type%22%3A%22journal%22%7D%7D%2C%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22index.license.exact%22%3A%22CC%20BY-NC-ND%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%2C%22query%22%3A%7B%22match_all%22%3A%7B%7D%7D%7D%7D%2C%22from%22%3A0%2C%22size%22%3A10%7D>
The large majority of CC BY-NC-ND and CC BY-NC "full OA" journals are
owned by few big publishers (De Gruyter Open, Elsevier, T&F and SAGE),
which makes sense because they want to give people the impression of
publishing in OA while actually keeping control of everything. What I
can't understand is why for instance a university would spend money on
managing a journal which is not even OA, with a license which could make
it impossible for the academics themselves to use it.
Federico
Paul S. Wilson, 20/06/2018 03:19:
A true "flaw to address more decisively" is
the unwarranted assumption
that a multitude of authors', researchers', funders', and publishers'
complex choices of a CC BY-NC license (rather than a supposedly always
superior CC-BY license) or any other license is any impediment
whatsoever to Wikipedia's simple core content policies of verifiability,
neutral point of view, and no original research. Granted, Wikidata
unilaterally changed CC-BY to CC-00, but that unauthorized maneuver
itself may at least partially explain the perceived shift to more
nuanced content licensing. .
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is the OA we like at Wikimedia: CC-BY everywhere!
I wonder why the uptick in CC BY-NC articles since 2016, though.
That's a flaw to address more decisively.
Federico