Wikidata talk:WikiProject Open Access

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikimania 2016[edit]

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Universities[edit]

Logo for the Wikidata Wikiproject Universities
Logo for the Wikidata Wikiproject Universities

Hello!

I have started a somewhat related project, WikiProject Universities, to improve the coverage of academic institutions in Wikidata. Feel free to join, and suggestions are very welcome!

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling open access policies[edit]

Daniel Mietchen
Ainali
DarTar
PKM
Marchitelli
Lawsonstu
Nasir Khan Saikat
HLHJ
Pintoch
Sic19
Jsamwrites
Ptolusque
Netha
Oa01 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megs
D.C.flyer
Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mazuritz (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wallacegromit1 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matlin (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So9q (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vis M (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zblace (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
spida-tarbell (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maxime
Metacladistics (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Open Access

Hi all,

I wonder how to represent open access policies. I have given it a try here: NIH Public Access Policy (Q15102911), but there are various constraints that I am not sure how to solve - I am probably not using the right properties. Potentially there could be a lot more metadata on these items, see for instance records like http://roarmap.eprints.org/1009/ . Maybe we need new properties for that.

Any ideas? − Pintoch (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great topic, and I don't think we already have what it takes to model them. Food for thought ... --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We now have ROARMAP ID (P4203) and mandates (P4424). − Pintoch (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling APCs[edit]

Some folks try to gather data around APC costs: https://github.com/sparcopen/doathon/issues/22 How could we store this in Wikidata? − Pintoch (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea: every instance of scientific journal could have a property indicating the cost of publishing an article in the journal. --A3nm (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example: Nucleic Acids Research (Q135122). Comments? (...Thanks to @Pintoch: for starting this thread; and to @Egon Willighagen: for this particular example). -- Oa01 (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One complexity is that some journals have different fees depending on some criterion. And that besides waiving, price differentiation to country/region, etc. What I'm thinking about are journals that differentiate for the type of CC-license. A separate complication is Closed Access/Paywalled journals that charge APC for things like figures, extra pages, etc. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Limited[edit]

This is too limited. It assumes that everything is at Commons, it is not. As a consequence it is left to Commons to specify the format data is in. What I need is for any type of publication, availability, license, format and URL for it to be found. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox journal[edit]

Is it possible to edit the Wikidata record for an open access journal so that the journal template in Wikipedia automatically indicates OA? Here is an example: Q2491968 (South African Journal of Science). Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oa01: It's not even clear to me what is the preferred way to mark a journal as open access in Wikidata. With instance of (P31)open-access journal (Q773668) maybe? I don't know much about templates but it seems that this infobox does not retrieve any data from Wikidata yet. − Pintoch (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pintoch: Thanks. Any suggestions for names of users in en-Wikipedia who might be willing to guide me as I try to learn to put Wikidata retrieval into an infobox? -- Oa01 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oa01: yes, User:RexxS has tools to ease that and I'm sure he will be happy to give you a hand. − Pintoch (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oa01: Yes, of course, I'd be happy to help anytime. You might want to start by looking at en:Module:WikidataIB for functions specifically designed for retrieving wikidata for use in infoboxes, and en:Module:Wd for more general functions for retrieving wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: Thank you! I will look at the suggested links and contact you if questions arise. -- Oa01 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have copyright license (P275), from which you can determine whether a journal is OA or not. For example, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (Q18199165) is an instance of open license (Q196294). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start, but I don't think it is enough:
  • It is quite common for some journals to be fully free to read without specifying an explicit license, or a in-house / ad hoc license that would not deserve to have its own item.
  • In principle it is possible to have closed journals with open licenses: legally speaking, nothing prevents a publisher from putting their own CC-BY papers behind a paywall. I think the argument was made a while ago when some publisher was found doing that "erroneously";
  • Quite often you have a source that witnesses the fact that a journal is OA, but the source does not mention the license, so it would be useful to be able to use this source to reference the simple fact that the journal is free to read. For instance https://doaj.org/toc/1996-7489 does not mention the license for South African Journal of Science (Q2491968). It would be relatively easy to import all of DOAJ with a bot and I think it would make sense to make sure that all journals in DOAJ can be clearly identified as OA in Wikidata.
Overall the academic world does not care much about licenses. Researchers just want to download PDFs for free, the rest is just fine print on copyright transfer agreements that they sign without reading. − Pintoch (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A journal that is "fully free to read without specifying an explicit license" is not OA. for your latter examples, an item called "unspecified open licence", could be created, to be used only where a more specific statement is not possible. https://doaj.org/toc/1996-7489 specifies the licence of South African Journal of Science (Q2491968) as "CC BY". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I had not seen the logo on the right-hand side. So let's say that I want a way to indicate that a journal is free to read. Is copyright license (P275) with "unspecified free to read license" the way to go? It looks convoluted to me. − Pintoch (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting you use that item only if the licence is open but unknown, otherwise use a more specific item, and then test for a licence that is a subclass of "open licence". I thought you wanted to indicate "open access" not "free to read". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OA book publishers[edit]

The US-based Open Access Directory has a list of book publishers that includes entities worth representing in Wikidata. At present, an OA book publisher in Wikidata could be an instance of a book publishing company (Q1320047) and of an open-access publisher (Q45400320). Would it be worthwhile to create a Q for "open-access book publisher"? or would that be unnecessarily granular? (Also, for the record, as of today there are only seven Wikidata pages that link to "open-access publisher.") -- Oa01 (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! What you are proposing looks great to me. Yes, there are also probably a lot of existing items which could be marked as open-access publisher (Q45400320). − Pintoch (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. I have begun a draft Property proposal for the Directory of Open Access Books publisher ID. Suggestions for improvement of the proposal would be much appreciated. Example of DOAB publisher ID: Centro de estudios mexicanos y centroamericanos ("func=publisher&pId=151") -- Oa01 (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have filled a few fields from the proposal template and have left comments about these changes in the history. − Pintoch (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pintoch, for filling in the missing parts and especially for explaining each step along the way. Very helpful. -- Oa01 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New property proposed: Directory of Open Access Books publisher ID[edit]

Please add your comments to Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control#DOAB publisher ID. Thanks again to @Pintoch: for help in drafting the proposal. -- Oa01 (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking publications to open access policies[edit]

Daniel Mietchen
Ainali
DarTar
PKM
Marchitelli
Lawsonstu
Nasir Khan Saikat
HLHJ
Pintoch
Sic19
Jsamwrites
Ptolusque
Netha
Oa01 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megs
D.C.flyer
Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mazuritz (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wallacegromit1 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matlin (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So9q (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vis M (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zblace (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
spida-tarbell (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maxime
Metacladistics (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Open Access

Hi All,

@Pintoch: suggested I post here to see if anyone has any ideas on how to link publications to open access policies. I couldn't find any existing property to use for this purpose. Thanks! Mlemusrojas (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mlemusrojas. The Journal of New Materials for Electrochemical Systems (Q3186930) includes in its ISSN identifier field a "stated in (P248)" subfield populated with a SHERPA/RoMEO link. Would that type of solution work for you? -- Oa01 (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oa01: The idea is to be able to link publications to the open access policy of the institution where the faculty is affiliated. An example of how this might work is adding the value IUPUI open access policy to this publication: Positive changes among patients with advanced colorectal cancer and their family caregivers. Does it make sense? I'm wondering if a property proposal would be the way to go. Thanks! Mlemusrojas (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlemusrojas: Would you use as a reference a published source that states a connection between the university policy and the author's research output? Perhaps something like a grant report? -- Oa01 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oa01: In the case of IUPUI open access policy the authors have retained copyrights to their work and have exercised these rights by sharing the work in the institutional repository. Wouldn't it be appropriate to use the metadata from the repository record as a reference to establish that the work is covered by the OA policy? --Jaireeodell (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what is the nature of the relation between the two objects. I guess we can say that Positive changes among patients with advanced colorectal cancer and their family caregivers: a qualitative analysis (Q39255347) is "in the scope of", or "subject to" Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis open access policy (Q54101814). But is that really an intrinsic property of the publication that we want to record on its item? For instance, we would not want to list all the regulations and other duties that apply to a particular company on its item: that can already be deduced from the legal form and the jurisdiction of that company (both of which can be recorded as statements).

I think that linking publications to policies is extremely interesting, but I would expect it to be an indirect link (via the affiliation of the authors) rather than a direct statement between the two items. − Pintoch (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pintoch: It's true that universities have many policies and that some of these apply to works by authors affiliated with those universities. But most OA policies do not apply to all works by all authors at the university. For IUPUI open access policy and most faculty-adopted OA policies the rights retained in the policy apply only to faculty authors and only to scholarly articles (not book chapters, books, and reports, for example). Likewise, authors can get a waiver from the policy for individual articles, if they need one. Thus, institutional affiliation is not a substitute as an indicator that rights have been retained and a version of the work has been made OA by the author. ... One of the values of this property would be in assessing how much of the scholarly literature has been made OA as a result of institutional policies. --Jaireeodell (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaireeodell: makes sense, I had not thought about the waivers. Do you have an idea of the sort of the property you would use then? (which label and how to use it?) − Pintoch (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pintoch: The way this could be used is by adding a property in the item for the scholarly publication where we can specify that it is part of or was contributed to the open access policy for the institution. The label could be something like "scholarly article is part of" or "scholarly article contributed to" followed by the entry for the policy. − Mlemusrojas (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft property proposal: OpenDOAR ID[edit]

Hello all. I have created a draft property proposal for the Directory of Open Access Repositories identifier. Please note that the current website of OpenDOAR will change in mid-June of 2018, which may affect some of the values in the draft proposal. Suggestions for improvement would be welcome. -- Oa01 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks perfect to me, thanks for that! − Pintoch (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal submitted: Wikidata:Property proposal/OpenDOAR ID. -- Oa01 (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OA policy adoption as a significant event (P793)?[edit]

Hello all. The Journal of High Energy Physics (Q26535) adopted an open access policy in 2014. What do you think of including this information as a significant event (P793) in the journal's Wikidata record? Or via some other property? Thanks. -- Oa01 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting! I think "open access policy" usually refers to the act of requiring openness by institutions or funders, so it is not clear to me what it means for a journal? Do you mean that it switched to open access in 2014? I think a different item should be used for that (open access policy (Q2000006) is not an event, as reported by the constraints violation gadget). Instead of a significant event I would rather indicate this as a period (it is open access *since* that date). − Pintoch (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes editorial boards of journals decide to adopt a gold OA policy (or not). In this case, the journal's website states: "As of 2014 papers are published according to the gold open access scheme funded by SCOAP3." Not sure if in this case the funder SCOAP3 caused the policy change. This particular journal may not be the best example -- other journals have clearer OA policy histories. This page has more info on the subject in general. -- Oa01 (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I would say that it "switched to OA" rather than adopted an OA policy (they do not describe it as a policy themselves by the way). Because by doing so they are not "requiring" anything from their authors - they just start publishing all papers in OA. − Pintoch (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about this variation? -- "open access" as the event, with a "start time" of 2014. -- Oa01 (talk)
Looks better to me, but we still have the issue that open access (Q232932) is not an event. If that event coincided with a change of license for the papers, maybe we could simply indicate the license with copyright license (P275) and the start time qualifier? It would be more precise than "open access", which is used in many different meanings and variations… − Pintoch (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CC0 metadata in NYPL Digital Collections (Q50325255)[edit]

Is there a way to signal that a digital collection's metadata is licensed CC0? -- Oa01 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe with copyright license (P275) and a qualifier applies to part (P518) metadata (Q180160)? − Pintoch (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you, @Pintoch:. -- Oa01 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on TRANSPOSE project[edit]

Hi all, I'm hoping to get your feedback on a project that we'll be pushing forward during OpenCon's Doathon on November 4th. TRANSPOSE is a grassroots effort to build a database of journal policies on peer review, co-reviewing, and detailed preprinting rules (eg which version is ok to post, what media coverage is allowed, etc). We're collecting this info with Google Forms to make it easy for anyone to add and edit records; we originally planned to use WikiData, but wanted to define a schema and get some contributions in a very easy-to-use format first. We hope that these data will eventually be integrated into some more stable database projects, and all original contributions are licensed CC0. I'd appreciate any comments, feedback, and of course contributions :) Jessica Polka (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the presentation! Notifying the project participants to start the discussion. − Pintoch (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Mietchen
Ainali
DarTar
PKM
Marchitelli
Lawsonstu
Nasir Khan Saikat
HLHJ
Pintoch
Sic19
Jsamwrites
Ptolusque
Netha
Oa01 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Jaireeodell (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Megs
D.C.flyer
Ivanhercaz (Talk) 11:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mazuritz (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wallacegromit1 (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Matlin (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So9q (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vis M (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zblace (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
spida-tarbell (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maxime
Metacladistics (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Open Access

@Jessica Polka:Sounds like an amazing idea, I just tweeted about it. If you want to get more traction on this, you should consider posting on wikicite-discuss.--DarTar (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessica Polka: You might want to check out the UK's SHERPA project; it contains the pre-print part of what you want, if I've understood correctly. There is also some relevant Wikidata discussion here. I'd also appreciate organized information on journal COI policies (do they meet any third-party standards)? This would be really useful for Wikipedia, which gets a lot of COI attempts to influence content. HLHJ (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that Transpose is CC-0, while the Sherpa data is unfree and hard to redistribute. Nemo 07:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources to import[edit]

A few lists/tables which would be worth importing because they can connect with each other and our existing information:

Nemo 07:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done reconciling Societies and Open Access Research (Q55822960) on OpenRefine, but what example can I follow as a data structure to import all the columns? Is PLOS One (Q564954) a good one? It doesn't have much. Nemo 07:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo_bis: Nice! PLOS One (Q564954) is probably a good place to start with - if you cannot find a format for some columns, this is a good place to discuss these cases individually. You can always import the easy ones and do a second pass with the hard ones, to avoid your import getting held up by ontological disputes… − Pintoch (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. For now:
Nemo 10:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I'm done for now: [2] (edit groups: [3] [4] [5] [6]). Nemo 14:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemo_bis: Wow. Thanks for doing this! -- Oa01 (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now doing Q73539606, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Q73539606. This one has some 1600 confirmed or likely society journals, but only 300 easily reconciled to a society with an existing item.
Here I'm even more doubtful I can use the concept of being "owned" by the society: so far they're mostly closed access journals at Elsevier and Wiley, so I'm not sure in what sense a society can own them if the publisher has exclusive copyright (as often happens). So I've been using only P31 with society journal (Q73364223) and I'm putting the name of the society in qualifiers with relative to (P2210) and quotation (P1683): that's probably a nightmare to query but at least it should be easy to find for anyone who stumbles on the statement and can't make sense out of it. There's a varying degree of doubt so I'm also using nature of statement (P5102) with allegedly (Q32188232) or hypothetically (Q18603603) (often the information comes from the journal's main page bragging about it, so it might be a lie or exaggeration).
I'm also not sure whether it's relevant for us to have the concept of "non-profit journal", applied en masse to journals from publishers like ACM and IEEE. That's a property one can easily deduce from the statements of the owning entity, plus I think it's quite distinct from what SOAR was tracking. Nemo 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Wikidata:Dataset Imports/Directory of Open Access Journals recommends has characteristic (P1552) article processing charge (Q15291071) to indicate APCs. Nemo 22:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OA directory found the queries useful for the journal flipping so now I imported Q73897277 for the reverse flips (edit group, contributions). It's a bit less rich than the DOAJ schema and I didn't import the columns about APC amounts, nor all the societies, because these can come later from sources which deal with all journals. Nemo 16:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some DOAJ journals which in 2018 had published at least 50 articles and we're now at 11187 DOAJ journals in Wikidata (of which 1273 with a missing publisher) according to my matches. The remaining 2691 journals are IMHO not a priority to import. Nemo 19:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher merges[edit]

[7] suggests https://www.cjr.org/resources for publisher merges. https://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=reed has a list of company names but no acquisition dates or prices so it's probably not that useful for Wikipedia and may not be enough to create new Wikidata items but should be fine as a source to link existing items together. Nemo 09:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition letter opposing lower embargoes (Q79108241)[edit]

Thanks to User:Daniel Mietchen, signatories to the Coalition letter opposing lower embargoes (Q79108241) now have Twitter handles and other properties such as house publication (P2813). (Background here and here). Other potential data categories to fill:

-- Oa01 (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Focus list[edit]

Hello. Here is a provisional focus list for the WikiProject OA. Additions/changes welcome.

-- Oa01 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over 93,000 articles missing publication info[edit]

To all who are interested, please see discussion at Project chat: Over 93,000 articles missing publication info. Cheers, -Animalparty (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiVA metadata[edit]

Hi, I have contacted DiVA two weeks ago and asked them to release a dump of all their metadata as CC0. Unfortunately I was not successful in getting the permission nor the dump.--So9q (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3D model (P4896)[edit]

It would be nice to see more open-access STLs being added to entities, particularly in light of cybertype (Q100500955) (https://datadryad.org/search?f%5Bdc_subject_sm%5D%5B%5D=cybertype). However, many of these files are large, and many need conversion from other 3d formats. commons:user:Open Access Media Importer Bot doesn't seem to have run for 3 years and would have trouble with zipped STLs or any non-STL format anyway. Is there a way to proceed rather than slowly doing it manually? Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Free) registration required[edit]

We have items for paywall (Q910845) and open access (Q232932), but I couldn't find one for "registration required (gratis)". I consider that different from free to read (Q24707952) (maybe a subclass?). So I went ahead and created registration required (Q107459441). I hope that's okay. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Property for OA_status[edit]

In Wikipedia there are templates such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Open_access to add the open access status manually. However, this information is not available from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_Q. I imagine that creating a property to store that information would be reasonable first step, to fill the OA symbol automatically. Physikerwelt (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Open_Access&oldid=2135584287"