I know that many people may interpret open access as
'free to read', but
I'm not sure that building that into a signalling system in Wikipedia is
the best idea. I've not totally thought this through yet, and I realise
that it's quite a complex set of degrees of openness which you've managed
to condense into three symbols well. But how about just using the PLOS
signals in their 'how open is it' guide, i.e. the orange 'lock' logo for
open access and the orange lock but with a cross through it for closed
access?
* orange padlock for "open access" ("CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA",
and perhaps also
more restrictive CC licenses)
* crossed-out orange padlock for "closed access"
This wouldn't signal free to read content that has no re-use rights, but
then I don't think this type of content has anything to do with true open
access according to the standard definitions (Budapest etc.).
I also think we maybe don't need to take embargos into account. At the end
of an embargo date, a majority of articles are still not open access. The
process of an article becoming open access at the end of an embargo is not
usually automatic but relies on them actually being deposited in a
repository. For this reason I think it would be misleading to mark up
articles in Wikipedia with a symbol that makes reference to embargo dates,
because there is no way of knowing whether the *potential* for open access
is achieved on this date.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks,
Stuart
User:Lawsonstu
On 9 September 2013 12:09, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all, I forward in this list a simple
proposal I made for and icon
system
for the Signalling OAness project on Wikipedia.
Some of you have just read it, but I think it's important to restart the
conversation on this new OA ml.
We have a lot of things to decide for this project - one of this is a
sort of icon system.
TL;DR: My proposal for icons is:
* grey padlock for "closed access"
* yellow-ish or grey-ish padlock for "embargoed" or "CC-BY-NC and
CC-BY-ND" articles.
* golden padlock for "CC-BY" and "CC-BY-SA"
----
There are many approaches that we could take:
for example, we can intend "open access" literally, and give the golden
padlock (or another icon) to any "gratis" article,
or we can intend "Open Access", be more strict and give it to
"libre"
ones.
Leslie, in the skype call, mentioned the "how open is it" leaflet:
http://www.plos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/hoii_guide_rev2_web_jpegs2.j…
We have somehow 6 dimensions:
1 Reader Rights
2 Reuse Rights
3 Copyrights
4 Author Posting Rights
5 Automatic Posting
6 Machine Readability
The situation is similar in the Linked Open Data world, and they solved
that with a star classification system:
http://5stardata.info/
We can go in that direction, and develop our own star/color/whatever
system...
But for the purpose of the signalling OA in Wikipedia I would stick with
"user rights", namely
1. Reader Rights
2. Reuse Rights
Remembering that we need to analyze at the article-level, and we don't
care about journals (not for now), things get simpler.
So, this is my break down.
Articles could either be:
* gratis or
* non gratis --> closed access, grey padlack
And if they are gratis, are they immediate accessible?
* yes
* no -> embargo. We could have an explicit date for that, retrivable by
bot, or we can simply have an icon.
If they are gratis and immediately accessible, we can then break down the
reuse rights with CC licenses.
So, following along these arguments, my personal system would involve use
of padlock with appropriate colors:
* grey padlock for closed access
* yellow-ish or grey-ish padlock for embargoed or CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-ND
articles.
* golden padlock for CC-BY and CC-BY-SA
Note that I've compressed in 3 icons a much complex situation, but it's a
start, maybe.
I'd invite you to give me feedback about this, and propose different
systems if mine is not amendable.
Aubrey
_______________________________________________
OpenAccess mailing list
OpenAccess(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
