Comments on: scientists vs. publishers vs. wikipedia

By: Hugh

Hugh — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:11:51 +0000

that sounds plausible … but again the real issue, long term, is that Open Access is the only way to go for scientific publications.

i think.

By: DM

DM — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:41:35 +0000

I read that the issue was scientists that wanted to put onto Wikipedia illustrations that they had submitted in journal articles. Because they had assigned the copyright of the article to the journal’s publisher, copyright prevented them from reusing the illustration on Wikipedia.

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:56:47 +0000

Oh, definitely, I agree completely :-)

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:46:47 +0000

hi david, the article was not clear on that – nor was it clarified in the comments. in any case, the larger point is about publishing on the web in general …in open web spaces, whether that’s at wp or elsewhere doesn’t really matter for the point the scientists wish to make.

By: David Gerard

David Gerard — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:59:04 +0000

I think the term “Wikipedia” here is being used to mean “free content site” – like someone using “Linux” when they really mean “open source software.” I believe the use case in this particular example was a small wiki for quantum physicists.