Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Answers to these likely depend somewhat on the agreements with resources who sign on to the project, but perhaps worth thinking about:

• How will eligibility of editors be defined, ie what does active/experienced mean in this context?
• If there aren't enough access slots for all who want them at any given time, is there potential for shares or rotations so that everyone working on articles in need of access is ensured a turn?
• How to design a system that doesn't take a lot of coordinator time to manually recruit editors to signup to fill slots, and then chase down people not using the resources to regain slots for reuse?

Siko (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As to eligibility, I'd be in favour of a system in which the N most active editors (in good standing) in mainspace automatically gain access, to be revoked in case of abuse (like copyvio) or after a long period of inactivity (where both N and the period over which activity is measured are negotiable parameters).  --Lambiam 15:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A few goals of the Library set-up, in my thinking would be: to make concrete, defined criteria and then let editors use them under good faith for a reasonable amount of time. For HighBeam, Questia, and Credo round 3, those criteria were a 1-year old account and 1000 edits on any Wikimedia project. That's a nice round number and seems to attract serious, active editors. The issue of revoking access is more complicated both politically and practically. It involves making tedious or controversial decisions about who is eligible after their initial sign-up. If possible, I'd like us to avoid having to make those kinds of decisions. It seems to me that a simple way to do so is simply have account access expire after a reasonable term (somewhere are 12 months seems right to me). And to also provide a simple mechanism for editors to relinquish an account if they are not active. We might combine that with a semi-automated approach that sends an editor a 'reminder' message every 2-3 months they have not signed in to the Wikipedia Library. That requires some technical investment that would be better to avoid if possible with clear up-front expectations for use and just general update/reminder messages that are not targeted at particular editors.

Developing an if-you-were-blocked or if-you-were-found-violating-copyright policy seems like it would be fairly contentious to design but also only minimally effective in terms of impact. Let's say we are bold and get access for 1000 editors up front and then 50 additional editors per year. How many editors with 1-year 1000-edit accounts, who are motivated to sign up for a 'free library pass' are going to be blocked or commit copyvios? First of all, those types of errors are sometimes made innocently and not a sign of a tarnished and tainted editor entirely. Blocks expire, and copyvios get fixed. I might sound slightly naive here, but I both assume and hope that the numbers of those types of situations anyway would be less than 5% (I'm really thinking more like 1-2%). So let's say 50 editors are showing some signs of inexperience or incompetence or worse.

My hunch is that the bigger problem is going to be the 30-60% of editors who just don't use The Library with any frequency. So, maybe you're right Lambiam that we should have an inactivity measure, but we don't want editors to feel forced to use The Library only encouraged and reminded that it's there. I'm just thinking out loud here. Thanks for the constructive feedback! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 10:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a more concrete example, taken from the WP:Questia sign up:

Requirements

• You do not have free online access to Questia through your local library or university
• You have your preferences enabled to receive email messages on English Wikipedia; (see Special:Preferences)
• You have an account that is a minimum of 1 year old
• You have a minimum of 1000 edits to the encyclopedia
• Ideally, you are active in content generation, research, and/or verification work.

Expectations for use

• All editors are encouraged to apply where they have a need for background reading, research, verification, or content writing
• Editors should try out and use the Questia account during their free access period
• Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a Questia article, per WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
• Editors should not provide bare links to non-free Questia pages
• Editors should note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate

Your application suggests you've read this and will give it a fair shot :)

I think if paired with a quarterly update/reminder and an easy link to relinquish an account, we'll avoid most of the common problems here. Maybe that alone is sufficient and we don't need to overly complicate things... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Ocassi. I like this very much. Out of curiosity, I'm very happy with both the accessibility and choice my local university library offers its students. Do you know what a good university pays per year per student for online journal access? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone (Ocaasi?) tell me how are you approaching these sites? Are you contacting via email/phone etc? And can you add this site https://www.library.britishcouncil.org.in/ in the list? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I contact them any way I can. Initially I usually go through their customer service/sales department and have them put me in touch with the right person. If I know a contact by name I will email or call them directly. I can contact British Council. Do you have any idea how many accounts we would want? 10? 50? 100? 1000?Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not directly related but, many times I tried contacting some websites and person (mostly Indian for image license permission, but never heard back anything. Only one person replied back. He asked some ₹1,000 (US$13) for 1 image of a Bengali celebrity (BLP). I did not pay (or contact back). :weep: :weep: I generally email from my gmail.com email. If possible, can you create a tutorial page on "approaching sites for Wikipedia Library" etc

About British Council, I don't know about their online storage, but, they are one of the best libraries of India. In their home page they say they have 70,000 books, if they really have it and they give us 200 accounts, it will be excellent! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I came across http://www.infomart.com/ at the very bottom right of the Edmonton Journal website as their storage database: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/index.html . Is it worth adding an acount for? I haven't looked into cost but they did wish us a happy birthday on their site yesterday.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think infomart is the content licensor for Edmonton Journal, but even that is speculative. Infomart appears to mainly be an analytics company that does some relicensing as well. More information is here: http://www.infomart.com/content-licensing/. The one strength they offer is a focus on Canadian sources which I wouldn't be surprised if other databases relatively lack. I'm not quite sure it's a top target as a research database or an organization that would be likely to partner with us as a donor, but no harm in looking into it. Cheers,Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I will leave it in your hands then. I think most majour(sic) cities in Canada only have two main papers, a newspaper and a rag. In Edmonton they are the Journal and the Sun. You will note that the Sun has a sports picture covering most the front page almost every day and only a one page business section, so I will let you decide which is the rag.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As an editor for over seven years, with over 75,000 edits, I'd be interested in signing up for this. I didn't see a link to a registration form or anything like that on the article page. Could someone tell me the process? Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae. Right now you can only sign up for the individual sites listed in the box at the top of WP:TWL. The only one with available accounts right now is WP:Questia. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Since these resources are behind a pay wall, I think it behooves us to encourage or even make it a guideline that when citing such sources we use the citation templates' "quote" field and add the specific sentence that supports the footnoted addition. I've seen, far too many times, citations that, upon examination of the cited source, have nothing to do with the claim being made. Sometimes it's an editor simply misreading the source, and sometimes a separate editor adds something uncited within a footnoted passage, but more times than you'd imagine the source makes no mention at all that supports the claim. Having the actual sentence that supports the claim would be reassuring to those who can't afford to go to the pay-wall article. Because after all, one of the key tenets of Wikipedia is that it's an altruistic, free encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious how you think WP:PAYWALL handles this, and if it's something we can enforce or should just recommend. Consensus seems to be that any reliable source, even paywalled, is better than no reliable source--but using the quote field may not be a bad idea. I'm curious what others think. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ocaasi, and thank you for spearheading what sounds like an exciting and incredibly useful project. In answer to your question, WP:PAYWALL says as long as sources are available, the ease of availability doesn't matter. As more and more sites go to pay models, however — The Times of London being but one prominent example — many of the non-affluent people and emerging nations who could benefit most from Wikipedia, and who in many cases have access to libraries or other free institutions that can do interlibrary loans, will not be able to check sources simply because they cannot afford to. This seems to go against the core spirit of Wikipedia. Inserting the confirming quote (in the good-faith assumption that editors will do so honestly and not fudge quotes) may be a painless way to avoid such a haves / have-nots situation. I'm with you in being curious what others think. With thanks and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library is currently up for an individual engagement grant here: m:Grants:IEG/The_Wikipedia_Library. Please share your thoughts. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw this mentioned recently for the first time in a while, and just wondered what the status of it is. Can anyone offer an update? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slim, sorry for the delay in responding. Credo accounts (500) are all used up and there is not an intention for future donations at this time. HighBeam's 1000 accounts are all used up and new accounts are currently being sought. Questia has several hundred accounts left still and signups are ongoing. JSTOR is maxed out with 100 donations, but there's hope to expand that program. The IEG grant was accepted for this spring and June through November will focus on expanding the Library offerings and management of the accounts. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(Bringing this discussion over from the Helpdesk..)

Is there any reasonable method for a Wikipedia hobbyist editor to get continual free access to the otherwise pay-per-document United States federal information resources of NTIS / NTRL?

• National Technical Information Service -- http://www.ntis.gov/

• National Technical Reports Library -- http://www.ntis.gov/products/ntrl.aspx

They want either $3000 a year for non-profit access, or about $15 per electronic document retrieved. I want to use high quality citations in the technical Wikipedia articles I edit, but I am not so "dedicated" as being willing to fork out that kind of cash, simply looking for possible article citations.

I live out in the middle of rural nowhere in Wisconsin, so there aren't any big colleges or metro public libraries that might possibly be nearby that are paying for document access.

And I can't really pass this research work on to someone else who does have access, as I'm doing general topic searches which may yield hundreds of documents to download and look through.

-- DMahalko (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into this. Can you give me a better idea of how these are useful sources and what areas on Wikipedia they'd be most helpful in? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like they may be able to provide access to technical citations for obscure extreme-tech topics. I see there is a "free trial" offer. I should probably just sign up with it and see what turns up in searches.

This started with my recent posting at Talk:Powered exoskeleton ...

US Military cite hunting at Defense Technical Information Center I know that extreme-tech topics like this can be really difficult to cite. But I have discovered a solution tonight. To find some of the really obscure technical articles for this subject matter from the US Military research programs, go here: United States Defense Technical Information Center -- http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/ 1. HARDIMAN --- 146 document search results 2. POWERED EXOSKELETON --- 334 document search results I am sure there is much more here that may be useful, but the difficulty is finding the correct technical search terms to describe exactly what you're looking for. The only big downside is that some of the old scanned documents from the 1960s are basically fax quality and the original grayscale images just did not transfer and look horrible.

So I tried contacting DTIC to see if they have any options for getting better image quality rescans of these old technical documents. They directed me to try NTIS:

Defense Technical Information Center -- http://www.dtic.mil -- Ask A Librarian DTIC has received your question and will answer shortly. [Question]: Is it possible for nonmilitary users of DTIC to request higher quality / grayscale / color rescans of DTIC original documents? For example take a look at the images in this PDF. They are extremely low quality, nearly useless. The original document was likely grayscale and looked much better: HARDIMAN I ARM TEST - HARDIMAN I PROTOTYPE PROJECT - Dec 31, 1969 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/701359.pdf Reason for research: It's complicated. I am a nonmilitary technology hobbyist Wikipedia editor in Wisconsin, researching the "powered exoskeleton", to better cite the Wikipedia article for this obscure and highly technical topic, and to perhaps enhance the knowledge of people around the world seeking to learn about this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_exoskeleton There is no rush on a response, and nobody needs to call me. Email is fine for a response.

Sir, It is highly unlikely that the original 1969 document was in greyscale. Consider the date. At that time, these reports were converted to microfiche or microfilm and the paper copies destroyed. With millions of reports being produced, there is no way the DTIC or any other government agency could have stored paper. DTIC made it's digital version from the microfiche or microfilm. We always use the best copy available. If, however, you want to get the microfiche, it may be available from the National Technical Information Service ( http://www.ntis.gov ), the government organization that is responsible for providing the public with such documents. DTIC's charter is to provide documents to the Military and other government agencies. As a courtesy, we post unclassified, unlimited documents for public use. Best Regards, The Reference Team at the Defense Technical Information Center, Ft. Belvoir, VA Phone: (703) 767-8265; DSN 427-8265

But if finding a free access route for NTIS access is a huge hassle then I will try to just go with what I'm able to find from DTIC's no-frills, no-support, free public documents access. -- DMahalko (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference between NTRL & the free NTIS is that NTRL includes full-text access to the documents they have scanned -- which is by no means all of the documents. (For the ones they haven't scanned, there's still a charge). The records in each database should be the same. My advice would be to use NTIS & DOE's Information Bridge. to find the reports you want, then get in touch with a local university library. Also, you can contact me directly; I can let you know if there's a digitized copy in NTRL. The database is a great resource for technical research but most of the documents are obscure enough -- with limited use cases for article use -- that I'm not sure it's a great use of money to try and get Wikipedian access. (I have some experience with this, as I'm an engineering librarian and I work a lot with tech reports -- feel free to use me as a tech reports contact). -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The search box is now here (it moved, which is confusing; let me know if that doesn't work for you as a non-subscriber), and let me know if you want a search run for you in NTRL, and also do try [1] -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi and everyone else,

I saw the note in the Signpost -- congrats on the grant -- and also I saw that you're considering authentication methods. I think it would actually be far easier to set up our own system than piggyback on a university system. Our university library for instance authenticates straight from the database of students, staff & faculty maintained by the central student people, and I don't have the faintest idea how you would tap into that -- I think it would be very difficult to add random folks. Not to mention, every license agreement we sign limits our stuff to "students, faculty & staff of UCD"; and, it's an all or nothing proposition -- if you're authenticated, you're authenticated for the whole massive library. AFAIK, most universities (in the US at least) work like this.

But, I do have advice for getting advice on how to set up a sign-on system, which is that you contact the friendly folks at Code4Lib -- several have worked with the Wikipedia API, and people may have good ideas about how to go about it. You might even find someone willing to work on the project. [2] cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Phoebe about the difficulty of piggy-backing, I talked to one of our IT people, and it's much the same deal, not really any options for integrating a limited, outside user group into the access. The Interior (Talk) 23:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

With the idea of widening the scope of the Wikipedia Library a bit, I've started a draft page (Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/Resources) to start collating free-of-charge web resources, as well as useful database indexes to help with source searches. The idea is that eventually, we can make some good topic-based "resource guide" type pages for the library. The active wikiprojects will probably have some good input on this. Thoughts? The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoah, just found this, helps us along a bit: Wikipedia:Public domain resources The Interior (Talk) 00:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A small collection at the moment, some of these free resources have been available for a while: http://oreilly.com/openbook/ . Enjoy. --Lexein (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are citation counts from WP articles included in any impact factors or altmetrics (yet)? If they are, this will be a "What's in it for publishers". Publishers would presumably be more keen on providing access to Wpedians if they know that resulting citations are likely to improve the impact ranking of their journals. Nurg (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, dropping a note here for FA writers and reviewers... the University of California system, one of the largest higher ed. systems in the U.S. if not the world, recently announced they're going to publish all peer-reviewed work by UC under open access policies. Books and journals will be available for reading in full at http://www.escholarship.org/. Steven Walling • talk 20:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good news. --Tito☸Dutta 23:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Get free access to research! Research tools and services Resource Exchange Reference Desk Research Desk Discover open access Free Resource Guides Book Sources Journal Sources Bibliographies Free newspaper sources Online archives Find Your Local Library tips Find Your Source tips How to find sources Citation tools guide Outreach The Wikipedia Library Bookshelf (meta) Universities and Libraries Archivists Publishers Wikipedia Loves Libraries Wikidata source metadata Get involved Get free access to sources Read the Books & Bytes newsletter Help disambiguate authors of scholarly papers Be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar Teach Library Interns Become a Coordinator Learn about TWL ...Support Open Access...

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources

Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries

Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians

Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources

Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the way the page is developing, very much. If someone who is not a Wikipedian but a member of a research publication organisation but wants to help us out, or talk to somebody about it, what should they be directed to do? Bear in mind that it might be someone non-technical so on-wiki discussion might not be convenient for them. Would it be good to have a shared email box? Or for a few people to publish their email address/ Skype names? Somebody running an archive might have an impulse to work with us, but unless it's easy to get in touch and talk with someone they might not get around to it. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, Martin. New contact email: wikipedialibrarygmail.com. I'll put that somewhere on the main page. Also, we have a twitter: @WikiLibrary. I'll add that too. And Facebook. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Resources page doesn't seem to be linked from the main page. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It's item #3 under Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library#Research Resources. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiding right in front of me. My mistake. 64.40.54.143 (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Any comments on this possibility? Shyamal (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Although this particular matter isn't necessarily within the currently stated scope here, it might be useful to maybe use wikimedia commons and or wikisource to host older or public domain reference sources, encyclopedic or otherwise, which might be very useful in developing content on some of the topics they deal with. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi and I have been discussing having a designated role for managing TWL's accounts. Ocaasi has been doing this on his own in the past. This isn't a laborious job, but needs some attention to detail. It involves watchlisting the application pages, vetting candidates using a fairly simple set of requirements (1 year activity, 1000 edits on any Wikimedia project(s), email enabled, and an expressed desire to use the account for article work), and emailing the access codes to users. As it stands, this wouldn't be more than 1 hour of work a week (though it will be heavier when new accounts are announced). If anyone is interested in taking this on, let me know. (Theoretically, if TWL keeps expanding, and gets some significant funding, this would eventually be at least a part-time paid position.) The Interior (Talk) 18:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Account Coordinator Signup

I see two people asked to receive the newsletter on other wikis than the English Wikipedia (search [[: on the list), and I would be interested also if it’s possible. I searched a bit by seeing what the Signpost used and it seems the way to do it is to set up a Meta page (so the external links on the current page would not work). I found meta:Global message delivery/Targets/Wikipedia Library but I guess it is outdated, if relevant for this use.

So I wonder if it is worth to maintain a global list; it would add some extra work for each issue, and there are currently 3 people interested. ~ Seb35 [^_^] [fr] 11:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The extension MassMessage will be deployed the next week, it will permit to deliver mass messages to users (even on other wikis) with a very similar workflow as EdwardBot. The list of subscribers will have to be converted to lines of the form:

{{#target:User:Example}}

or {{#target:User:Example|fr.wikipedia.org}}

and then the activation will be on Special:MassMessage instead of the spam+status pages of EdwardBot. The log will be Special:Log/massmessage, and there is a help page.

~ Seb35 [^_^] [fr] 15:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Seb, thanks for the info on MassMessage. Will probably start using it for upcoming issues. For now, I was planning on just hand-delivering to the non-enwiki talk pages, but this looks like a better way for the future. The Interior (Talk) 18:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Libraries are something of the whole world. It is not restricted to English and I am sad to find this project in the English Language Wikipedia..

Has it been considered to have this project on Meta ?

Thanks, GerardM (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion since I have mentioned the same twice on the mailing lists, months apart. Even if the resources are in English only, the fact is that most Wikipedias still use references in English even if the articles are written in a different language, so this is not a point. I also think we should consider moving this project in a global location, i.e. metawiki. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a possibility. Up til this point the project has been the work of a small number of en.wiki editors soliciting donations from providers of primarily English language databases. Ideally, each project would operate its own "branch" where editors could best identify library partners, databases and resources in their own language. Gerard, please don't be sad to find it here, be happy to know that it was quite easy to find database partners, and if you start a nl.wiki branch of the library, I'm confident you will find partners in that language. Myself and others would be willing to help you get it started. Amqui, what I am worried about if we move this project over to meta wiki is participation levels. Currently, the Library has very good engagement from interested en.wiki editors. How many of these editors spend any time at all on Meta wiki? I would much rather see a meta wiki branch of the library than have it exclusively hosted on that wiki. Yes, meta is global, but it is not part of the sphere of many of our content editors who benefit from the service. My thoughts, anyway. The Interior (Talk) 00:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point. I, for one, hardly ever go to meta. But Gerard has a point too. Although the nl.wp would probably be interested to access to, says, Dutch-language newspaper archives, they certainly will also be interested in (mostly English-language) academic journals. The editors interested in the latter would, of course, by necessity be able to read (and hence write at least a bit) English. So why not create a page on meta (and on other-language wikis as well) referring them here for English-language sources. Any wiki could in addition, of course, start a library initiative in its own language. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to divide the library's project and to have different Wikimedia projects "competing" against each other, since as I said other language-version Wikipedias are also looking at English academic journals as well, do we really want different small groups of people contacting the same organizations under the name of "Wikipedia"? I think it would add to confusion and won't serve our interests really well. Also I don't understand how the activity level would be lowered if it's moved to a central location since it would still serve the editors, this page on English Wikipedia could stay to redirect the contributors to meta. Also note that this project can also serve other English language projects like Wikiversity or Wikibooks. We should share efforts and all work together, not divide it. Amqui (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to fracture this project and even less to have them compete with each other. I'm just proposing that this project here concentrates on English resources (I don't think anyone has proposed anything else), whereas a Dutch, French, or Tagalog sister project could concentrate on sources in their respective languages and come here for access to English-language sources. As for here or meta: I have this project on my watchlist, so if something is posted I will see it. I hardly ever go to meta and anything that would happen there would escape my attention. I assume that it will be similar for many other people here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As I already said, English is an international academic language and concerns more than the English Wikipedia editors, academic references in most languages are limited. How can several different Wikipedia library projects can track which organizations have been contacted already or with which organizations partnerships already exist if we don't have a central global project to coordinate the efforts and the initiatives of everybody? Also the argument for the watchlist is true for every Wikipedia versions, not only English one, how can you ask editors of other Wikipedias to follow the English Wikipedia, when you mention yourself that even changes on a central location escape your attention? It doesn't make sense to me to ask other editors to follow another local project (enwp) on top of the central one and their own local projects, especially if "many other people here" can't do it as you said, it's seem unfair to expect that of others. By being hosted on the English Wikipedia it also gives the impression that the project is for the English Wikipedia editors only, even if that's not true. I understand the problems you mentioned, but it looks to me that there is more good by having a central Wikimedia library project than keeping it on enwp. A global watchlist would solve this issue, but in the meantime it is possible to set up your account on metawiki to send you an e-mail when there are changes in your watchlist, since people who "hardly ever go on meta" would have only a page or two in their watchlist this won't spam their mailbox either and the changes won't go unnoticed. I think we would all benifit with having everybody collaborating together instead of having little niche initiatives here and there. Amqui (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the idea that this should be a central project, like meta. In some places like India, most people (editors) hardly have access to libraries. Add to it that there are as many as 20 language Wikipedia that are handled within that region and editors in the region who merely use newspapers and websites as references for all topics would do better being able to have a single point where they could request reference help. The fact of course is that there are no libraries or librarians helping them on any WMF project, but even if a few libraries in the region stepped in it would seem like a good idea to centralize. I am sure references in multiple languages requested in multiple languages can be handled as on some Commons pages. Shyamal (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Role of the Wikipedia Library on Meta

Ocaasi has copied over content to Meta, located at meta:The Wikipedia Library. We can set up a MassMessage (thanks Seb) to notify community boards about this location, and get more editors form the smaller projects involved. The difficulty then becomes the "legwork" - for the Meta library to be effective, it will need MetaWikipedians to help maintain the page, respond to queries, and continue the global messaging.

Part of the dilemma of where to locate the "main branch" of the library is its evolving role. If the library is simply a place to sign up for accounts, then a centralized model using Meta makes sense. However, if TWL is going to have a wider role, for instance curating guides of free content, building pathfinders, supporting real-life library meetups a la Wiki Loves Libraries, etc., then having project/language-specific "branches" is a better approach. I understand the concern of branches competing for subscriptions, but this can be avoided by some central coordination - a good use for the Meta branch.

Moving pages like the Resource Exchange over to Meta would be very disruptive, and ultimately fruitless, as they function only through the efforts of volunteers on this wiki. If there is sufficient support from editors active on Meta to have a Meta-based version, that would be wonderful. However, I doubt this is the case. Moving pages is one thing, moving labour is another.

The language question is a difficult one. The reality is that for a lot of topics, the best extant resources are in either English, or the other major European languages. Giving bi-lingual editors from the smaller projects is good, but even better would be a "local" branch assisting monolingual and bi-lingual editors to access the best sources in that language. While they sometimes may be necessary, English references don't serve the monolingual readers of those wikis.

I realize there is no easy solution to this; more discussion would be desirable. The Interior (Talk) 20:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the best place to post suggestions?

The Handbook of the Birds of the World is now online, subscription only, at http://www.hbw.com/ - it would be good to secure access for some Wikipedians. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

As good as any, Andy. It's specialized, but sounds like it would be very useful to our ornithology editors. I've added HBW to the list of people to contact. Thanks for the suggestion, The Interior (Talk) 17:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I second that proposal as posted above. Shyamal (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

See also de:Wikipedia:Literaturstipendium/HBW. --HHill (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have a subscription Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Particularly useful for first uses of words, although not necessarily as gospel as you might expect. The subscription is mega-expensive, but access is free to users of British libraries in most council areas. Just need to enter your library card number. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Other links I can access with my library card from Somerset (UK) include the ODNB, The Times newspaper to date, multi-volume dictionaries of music and art and some C19 (and earlier) newpapers. All good stuff for historical studies. Apwoolrich (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see note at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Message to all cambridge graduates about JSTOR access. Cheers. 64.40.54.177 (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Many other universities (at least in the UK) allow alumni access to JSTOR, worth checking. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Linkypedia looks a useful tool. For specified websites it lists and counts the Wikipedia articles in which they are used as references. It would be worth having HighBeam, Credo, and similar partner websites added to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, why you think that RSS/Atom link is a bit busy? I can change it to show new librarians page updates. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Rezonansowy, I generally think the usage of RSS will be pretty low, especially considering this is more of an overview portal than an activity portal. Since the only regularly updated content at the moment is the profiles, I doubt people will want to subscribe to that. I want the page to be very clearly focused on understanding the library and getting involved with it, and that one element just seemed like overdoing it at the moment. All your other changes are really neat. It might make sense to have a feed on other pages with more regular activity. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but what do you think about feed only about profiles. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ocaasi? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Rezonansowy, I personally don't see it as really useful, but all your other changes are great. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Does TWL have or envisage any partnerships with BioOne? An existing partnership with WMDE was limited until 2013 (see corresponding discussion). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please allow me to correct you, Daniel. The partnership is not limited, but there are technical issues which require to renew the accounts all two years. We are corresponding already and would appreciate not to cause irritations by additional mailings. Regards, Denis Barthel (WMDE) (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I told to Ocaasi about an Italian project we realized last year, and he asked me to explain it here. Well. A group of wikipedian and librarian have realized a template witch links wikipedia items to library OPAC. The template is here: Thesaurus BNCF

• {{Thesaurus BNCF}} the identifier is recovered from Wikidata property P508
• {{Thesaurus BNCF|id}} to insert directly the id of term

You can see here Cattedrale at the bottom of the page the link "Cattedrale in «Tesauro del Nuovo Soggettario», BNCF, marzo 2013."

The link under the term Cattedrale brings to the corresponding record on the Thesaurus of the Italian National Library of Florence (BNCF) and from the record following the link Notizie bibliografiche (bibliographic records) you go to the list of record witch have that word on the title. --Giaccai (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick note (for Echo purposes), interested users on it.wiki are CristianCantoro, Aubrey and Sannita -- CristianCantoro (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

See the latest thread at Wikipedia talk:The Wikipedia Library/JSTOR Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

• Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
• Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
• New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
• Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
• Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
• Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am also working on a proposal for more long-term access to the RS's journals for some active editors.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Very cool, John! We will add a note about this to the newsletter. Let us know if you have any progress with long-term access. The Interior (Talk) 18:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me whether there are Lexis-Nexis accounts available? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Buckshot06, we have had some lengthy discussions with Lexis-Nexis representatives, but, unfortunately, at this time we don't have L/N accounts available. The Interior (Talk) 18:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:The Interior, thank you very much for answering my question here. TWL is a great initiative! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Policies are currently being established at meta:Trademark policy‎, but in its current proposal, it seems that the Wikimedia community has rights to make derivative logos for projects. I had considered applying this book logo to Wikipedia Loves Libraries, but I know it to be unused otherwise. Would the Wikipedia Library like to use it? Thank you for your consideration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Bluerasberry. I'm curious what others think. My first instinct, honestly, is that I'm not crazy about this logo and think we can do something more interesting from scratch. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If not this logo, then I would be supportive of anything derived from the meta:Community Logo. I like the idea of keeping consistent branding for community projects unless someone has a good reason to disassociate a project from the community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Lane, I kind of assume that the 'Wikipedia' in Wikipedia Library makes clear what we're a part of ;) I want a logo that's exciting and inviting and inspiring. If it has the same visual style, neat, but it's not my first interest. Let's get some more opinions on this... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The display of books on this logo look like a left hand giving the finger. benzband (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there is not yet a Wikipedia article on accidental fingers. [3][4][5][6]... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My first impression before reading this was that the logo looked like a clenched fist. I see Benzband's point as well, so I suggest some tweaking is in order here. Jusdafax 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as long as we avoid twerking ;) Buckshot06 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am again pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 25th and 26th. This is in conjunction with the Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon on 25 March. The event is held by the Royal Society and there are currently a couple of places available, as well as online participation which is very welcome, as are suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Diversity in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 25th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 26th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events in May, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Great news! Huge thanks to both you and the Society for arranging this. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey all, just an update that while JSTOR and The WIkipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

Also, it would be really helpful if anyone who has participated in the pilot would fill out this survey about their usage and experience with JSTOR: SURVEY.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly just my opinion. At wikisource:User: John Carter I have a list of PD reference sources, of which around 750 are available at archive.org. If anyone wanted to put some of them at Commons, or help put proofread text on wikisource, I think the net effect would be to make it easier for more people to gain quick knowledge of subjects, to find at least some sources, and to find some topics or subjects poorly covered, particularly topics with lengthy articles in some of the encyclopedias. And, of course, they're all PD, so we could use them all with proper attribution. If anyone were interested, such efforts might be very useful. John Carter (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, I'd love to see some progress on this front. I made a weak attempt to start curating PD/OA sources in the fall, this is as far as I got: Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Resources. Then I discovered this page (Wikipedia:List of free online resources), which is more developed. Eventually, I'd like to see the Wikipedia Library hosting a curated set of subject guides or pathfinders, helping editors navigate the resource landscape in their area of interest. Getting the sources into Wikisource and proofread would be ideal, however, it's pretty labour-intensive. If you want to get something off the ground, you've got my support, and I'll plug your efforts through the library newsletter, as well as off-wiki with library groups. Let me know what you think. The Interior (Talk) 20:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am now myself going over the ARBA and other sources for among other things free reference sources available on the net, and may add any I can find to that list. I'm also going over publications for best reference sources in the field, and going to eventually add them to the lists of encyclopedias. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've recently noticed on WorldCat that the MyiLibrary website [7] contains some sources which don't seem available on other similar websites, particularly including sources published from the southeast Asian and Asia-Pacific areas, such as Delhi's University Publications. I think it might be particularly useful for editors here on a lot of topics relating to that area which might get less coverage from publications outside the region. If those who know how to do such things thought it worthwhile to see if they might offer us access, I think it might be useful to the editors dealing with at least some topics relating to that area. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We can reach out to them on Monday, John. The Interior (Talk) 18:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The new watchlist notice that just showed up says, "JSTOR is offering 400 new accounts", but Wikipedia:TWL/Journals says JSTOR accounts are full. Somebody should correct the notice. Ntsimp (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's actually the journal requests page that needed correcting, updated now. Thanks for the note. The Interior (Talk) 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Library organizers: I signed up for access to the BNA because I intend to use it to find reliable sources for a variety of Wikipedia articles. This will be very useful. However, I was somewhat dismayed to receive an e-mail stating that Wikipedia is now in a partnership with this commercial organization, and encouraging me to promote the partnership (which amounts to promoting the company) both on and off-wiki (for example, in my "blog", if I had one). I have been involved with various non-profit organizations throughout my life, and have seen too often how they can lose their focus when combined in any way with profit-seeking companies, which are relentless in seeking financial advantage for themselves, as is to be expected. If promotion of the BNA (or any of the other commercial repositories) is part of a "partnership" agreement, I urge that the agreement be terminated now, because this goes directly against Wikipedia policy; if not, I urge that the organizers of the project remove any suggestion of off-wiki promotion from their communications. Please note that I am not speaking against the BNA itself, which I consider to be a fine company, and with which I have had only positive previous dealings as part of my role in another organization; I am only pushing back against commercialism in Wikipedia. If repository companies are freely donating the database access, well and good; if they expect thereby to turn Wikipedia editors into an unofficial sales force, this should not be allowed. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Hi Anne, thank you for your thoughtful comments. The Wikipedia Library's journal access program involves a donation from publishers. Their motivation is to expose their collections and raise awareness of their offerings; our motivation is to write a densely referenced encyclopedia. This is happening against the altruistic background of our mission to share knowledge, as well as the lamentable state of research in our society, where much of it is locked behind paywalls. In this environment, we seek out the resources held by publishing partners. I use that word loosely, because we do not have formal contracts (behind a basic memorandum of understanding), there is nothing exclusive about these relationships, there is nothing requiring editors to use one source over another, and there is definitely no requirement (or even expectation) that you will promote these partnerships on-wiki or off-wiki. As an editor, your role is simply to derive as much scholarly benefit as you can from these sources. If in the process of doing so, you realize that a publisher has a great collection and you're excited about it, I'm sure they would like being mentioned, who wouldn't? This, however, is in no way an expectation, and I regret that it was included in the onboarding emails because it does implicate editors in the suggestion of promotion. That message was sent out by BNA, whereas typically the emails are sent either by TWL coordinators, and/or without discussion of promotion. The email our TWL coordinator sent out used language we don't typically include, and it sent the wrong message. We appreciate what our partners help us do, are not naive about the benefits to them from working with Wikipedia, and most of all want editors to have nothing to worry about except their research and efficiency. If we've erred here, I'm sorry, and I will caution publishers (and all involved) to be more reserved in how they approach these issues in the future. Sincerely, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Pinging TWL organizers Sadads and The Interior if they'd like to add additional perspective. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

To quote from the e-mail I received from Sadads: "We would very much like to promote the partnership via proper citations, social media, BNA’s blog and your own blogs" (emphasis mine). Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific. I assumed that this was a boiler-plate e-mail and that everyone concerned would have this page on his or her watchlist. The e-mail doesn't leave the impression that it was sent by BNA staff. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)\

@Anne Delong: and @Ocaasi:: I apologize, because that was my language which I used in that email, and I am sorry that it seemed in any way promoting commercialism. I do not, we do not, intend to lapse into commercialism, and will most certainly change the language in future emails.

By encouraging blogging, I meant to ultimately help us communicate what's great about these partnerships. For Wikipedians, publishers, and researchers using those kinds of resources: it is important to communicate why contributing to Wikipedia is so worthwhile and how good resources are vital to what we do.

On a pragmatic note, it's realistic that we get more accounts when publishers see that we are grateful for their donation, and talking about it. That said: per Ocaasi, there is no requirement or expectation for any editors to be involved in doing so--you are not the sales force. My email suggested otherwise, and I see that it’s not the message we want to be sending.

I am making sure that any communications coming from BNA (or others) keeps the priorities in order and focuses on the positive Wikipedia and public knowledge aspects of the collaboration rather than the commercial ones. I'm even hoping that BNA's primary audience (researchers using newspaper databases) might recognize the common approach they share with Wikipedians, and we can motivate them to contribute to our community. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Anne!Sadads (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My "free account" doesn't seem to allow me to actually access any articles. Every time I click on one, it urges me to take out a paid subscription. What is wrong here? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Hi Orange Mike, we haven't processed any "Newspapers.com" accounts yet. If you registered at their website, you skipped ahead of us :) Expect an email in the next week that has instructions. The publishers we partner with like us to verify the users, giving users access, Sadads (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The National Library of Australia's lovely Trove archive of digitised newspapers (no subscription required!) provides a pre-formatted Wikipedia citation template for editors to copy and paste (for example, try the "cite" tab on this).

When negotiating access for Wikipedia editors, with other archives, perhaps this could be mentioned, and a suggestion made that they do likewise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ocaasi. :) LOVE the library. You're doing such awesome things. Very happy to have this resource. Very grateful to you. :) Question... In your bottommost infobox, the WP:TWL/Header, under Outreach, you list GLAM but not Education. Let's talk about this. :) All the best, Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

AKoval (WMF). Fixed! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Noticed that you're using the blue mw-ui-progressive buttons on your portal page. We were doing that too over at Outreach:Education but switched to the white ones instead in most cases. You can see one here. The white seems to be a little easier on the eyes. Just an idea. :) Anna Koval (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

AKoval (WMF) In all matters of design I defer to the inimitable Heatherawalls, but I'll take a look :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, personal opinion, I find the white buttons a bit underwhelming and insufficiently call to ACTION for my taste. Thought they are clean, I find them on the meek side and un-bold! So I must maintain the blue-idity of TWL, despite visual misalignment with other related outreach project, at least for now ;) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Or are they included in newspapers.com? I was just browsing The Guardian's site and came across this.Skookum1 (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have access to either. We are collecting suggestions for future outreach at the bottom of WP:TWL/Journals. I know we have made progress with the New York Times in talks (hopefully that will be coming soon, Sadads (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that our efforts to create a branch of the Wikipedia Library on German Wikipedia have met with the scandal about the new superprotect right introduced by the Wikimedia Foundation during Wikimania 2014 in London. Thus, the German community is definitely disintegrating. Many regular editors have stopped contributing, and so have I. Some sysops have asked to remove their rights, and some have become inactive. I think this is not a good moment to start a German branch of the Wikipedia Library. So I have stopped the project. I really do not know who to distribute any accounts to now. I deem this change irreversible.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a proposal at Idealab.

• meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Import_and_adapt_open_textbooks

There is an organization which is providing all introductory college textbooks under a Wikimedia compatible license. I think that some Wikimedia project should import these, but probably this will have to be done with a lot of manual text adaptation. If anyone in the world could be identified to do this then I think that person should be supported.

It would be great if the Wikimedia Library could offer up-to-date-enough copies of all introductory college textbooks, if that were aligned with the scope of the Wikimedia Library. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)