Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
give yourself some credit here |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Finally, I looked for attribution of Wikipedia in the ''Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses'' and a release of this book under an [[open license]] as required by Wikipedia, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the ''Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses'' retails for $375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license. |
Finally, I looked for attribution of Wikipedia in the ''Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses'' and a release of this book under an [[open license]] as required by Wikipedia, and the result was that neither of these have been performed. The hardcover version of the ''Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses'' retails for $375. I discussed this issue with the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation, who contacted the Oxford University Press. We were hoping that they could negotiate both attribution and release under an open license. |
||
The reputation of Wikipedia in academia often seems to be that it is good enough for academics to use and even occasionally claim as their own work, but not good enough for either students or the “unwashed masses”. Thus I believed that convincing one of the world’s foremost medical publishers to both attribute and use an open license would be difficult. The legal team at the WMF, however, was optimistic. Initial emails from OUP indicated that this case would take longer than usual, as the people involved were “all over the world doing important Ebola work”. This, of course, is not the first time we have come across the academic literature copy and pasting from Wikipedia. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/book-that-plagiarized-from-wikipedia-is-pulled-from-market/ |
The reputation of Wikipedia in academia often seems to be that it is good enough for academics to use and even occasionally claim as their own work, but not good enough for either students or the “unwashed masses”. Thus I believed that convincing one of the world’s foremost medical publishers to both attribute and use an open license would be difficult. The legal team at the WMF, however, was optimistic. Initial emails from OUP indicated that this case would take longer than usual, as the people involved were “all over the world doing important Ebola work”. This, of course, is not the first time we have come across the academic literature copy and pasting from Wikipedia. In 2012, I discovered a medical textbook had also [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/book-that-plagiarized-from-wikipedia-is-pulled-from-market/ extensively copied from Wikipedia]. |
||
At Wikipedia are happy to work with publishers. A year or so ago I helped guide the company boundless.com, which creates open access textbooks mostly based on Wikipedia content for first year university students, on how to appropriately attribute. These books were already released under a CC BY SA license. |
At Wikipedia are happy to work with publishers. A year or so ago I helped guide the company boundless.com, which creates open access textbooks mostly based on Wikipedia content for first year university students, on how to appropriately attribute. These books were already released under a CC BY SA license. |