Open Access NA‑class

Template:Open access navbox is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Open Access to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect) Cleanup : Access2Research Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles. Other : add ((WikiProject Open Access)) to talk pages of related articles, and assess; Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Lots of "open" templates are noted at WikiProject Open Access. I think that the concept of open access has enough Wikipedia articles describing it that it needs its own navigational template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've gone through most of the articles in the box and added the template to them. Lawsonstu (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This box has a short explanation of libre which says, "free to reuse". Another user wishes to change this to "free as in freedom" to match the rally call of the Free Software Foundation. I think that "free to reuse" is preferable because most people can understand that, but the phrase "free as in freedom" does not immediately convey any particular meaning outside the context of people who know something about Stallman's biography, the history of software, or what relationship freedom might have with remixing a copyrighted work. Other thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Free as in freedom" is a tautology which means nothing out of context (personally I had never heard the phrase before), while "free to re-use" is the widely understood term that the open access and research communities most commonly use. - Lawsonstu (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase comes from an outreach campaign in the United States. It is like a brand slogan or an advertisement for the non-profit cause. See Free as in Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Libre#Open_access section explains the (confusing) issue pretty clearly. Libre open access refers to works with unusually broad grants of permission (i.e. not all rights reserved) while gratis open access refers merely to works which are available without a fee for reading, but still with all copyright permissions withheld. This is different from the use of the term libre in the FOSS world. As for what short glosses should be used in this template to explain the phrases... the current ones aren't great, but the suggested improvement doesn't seem better. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "gratis (readable without a fee), libre (with an unusually broad copyright license)"? It's plenty ugly wording, but it has the advantage of being clearer, I hope... 63.251.123.2 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In rethinking "gratis", it currently says "free to read", and you mention fees. Perhaps the description here should be "without a fee" or "free of cost" or "without cost to view". I am not sure I like the term "readable" because I am someone who uses open access videos and would like to see more academic videos. "Viewable" might work, if that is necessary. I do not like "unusually broad copyright license" because the term "copyright license" does nothing to convey any sort of availability for reuse, and practically all people outside the movement would think of a copyright license as being something like completely restricted syndicated content just sold from one big publisher to another, like press photos. I think you are spot on by checking existing articles and seeing how this is already described. I assumed that "free to reuse" would satisfy most people, and I still find that preferable to "with an unusually broad copyright license" or "free as in freedom", but either of those might be better... or something else might be better... I am not sure. What proposals are on the table? Do you have other ideas? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with the current status -- so unless someone else comes up with something that is clearly better, I think we can leave it. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]