Policy talk:Open access policy/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 8 years ago by MBrar (WMF) in topic ORCID
Content deleted Content added
→GPL?: re |
MBrar (WMF) (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Excellent initiative. I suggest that we encourage, and eventually require, researchers to supply their {{w|ORCID}} identifier as part of their proposal. Many research funding bodies and publishers are now making this requirement. (Disclosure: I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID.) <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
Excellent initiative. I suggest that we encourage, and eventually require, researchers to supply their {{w|ORCID}} identifier as part of their proposal. Many research funding bodies and publishers are now making this requirement. (Disclosure: I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID.) <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 11:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you, Andy {{ping|Pigsonthewing}} for that suggestion! We will keep this in mind as we monitor the effectiveness of the existing policy. [[User:MBrar (WMF)|MBrar (WMF)]] ([[User talk:MBrar (WMF)|talk]]) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Niggles == |
== Niggles == |
||
Revision as of 21:42, 19 June 2015
ORCID
Excellent initiative. I suggest that we encourage, and eventually require, researchers to supply their ORCID identifier as part of their proposal. Many research funding bodies and publishers are now making this requirement. (Disclosure: I am Wikipedian in Residence at ORCID.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Andy @Pigsonthewing: for that suggestion! We will keep this in mind as we monitor the effectiveness of the existing policy. MBrar (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Niggles
Hi, it's a good step forward. Just on the micro-level, why the caps for "free license" and (inconsistent with the title) "open access" in the main text? Tony (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
GPL?
Why is the emphasis on the GPL? Most modern research code I see is MIT licensed. We shouldn't call out a viral license exclusively. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- To be clear, it says "GPL or any other OSI-approved license." I assume we called it out for the same reason we called out BY-SA (our specific community norms). Greg (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but the GPL isn't our community norm around research, but instead our norm around production software. Ironholds (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)