Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Resource Exchange

message: Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: 
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaflet For Wikiproject Resource Exchange At Wikimania 2014

message: Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to User Study 

message: I would like to invite this group to the discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject proposal 

message: FYI, to members of this project, there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Domesday Book to add information onto Wikipedia from the Domesday Book. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Domesday Book

message: Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder 

message: Where are the applications for the various journal access programs?  I found one rather randomly at Wikipedia:Royal Society journals.  Also thinking of Highbeam (I had access once), etc.  There needs to be a section here listing what's available and how/where to apply.  PS: It's also confusing that WP:LIBRARY comes here instead of to WP:The Wikipedia Library.  Can this stuff be merged or at least better cross-referenced?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found at least some of the applications, at Wikipedia:TWL/Journals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Jake, wouldn't the shortcuts WP:LIB and LIBRARY be better suited for TWL? I have yet to come across an instance of this Wikiproject being referred to as such. - NQ (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

text:  Alright, there are a few instances of these shortcuts being used in the context of Resource Exchange , . Since WP:TWL includes a prominent link to RX under "Find or share a source", I don't think finding this wikiproject would be much of an issue. - NQ (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to have WP:LIBRARY redirect to WP:The Wikipedia Library.  If WP:RX is ok with that, let's do it!  Jake Ocaasi t | c 17:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia LIBRARY has become synonymous with TWL and I see no practical reason to keep it. Ping  - NQ (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have an opinion because I always access Resource exchange with WP:RX. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: Hello resource sharers! At The Wikipedia Library, we are actively looking for more volunteers to help with Partner donation distribution, communications towards the Wikimedia community and outreach with publishers! If you would be interested in helping us get other users access to quality sources, complete an on-wiki application, or let our lead volunteer coordinator, User:Nikkimaria know. Thanks much! Sadads (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Library looking for Partner Account Coordinators! 

message: A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns.  Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.  These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories.  Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

message: Which of these are best for linguistics research?  I've not been having such good luck with JSTOR so far, but that may be because the topic is obscure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping  - NQ (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm an amateur, not a professional linguist, and I work mainly with primary sources, so I may not be the best source of information.  It isn't quite clear what kind of research you're conducting.  For peer-reviewed journal articles, EBSCO's Academic Search Premier seems to have reasonably good coverage, and Gale's Academic OneFile isn't too bad.  For dictionaries, you should always start with the Oxford English Dictionary; the best slang dictionaries are Green's Dictionary of Slang and the Historical Dictionary of American Slang (which is complete only through the letter O), while the Dictionary of American Regional English is essential for American regional English.  The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language is a leading work on English grammar.  I have access to Academic Search Premier, Academic OneFile, the OED, HDAS, and some other resources (but not Green, DARE, or the Cambridge English Grammar), if you would like a specific search.  If you have a question you would like to discuss with serious professional and amateur linguists, you can post it to the American Dialect Society's email list.  John M Baker (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have EBSCO, and I can send you whatever you need. I'm not a linguist though, so I can't help you with that.  ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 21:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best sources for linguistics? 

message: Hi Resource Exchange,
You may have seen in a watchlist notice or elsewhere that there are currently five open Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars positions. Visiting Scholars is a program that connects experienced Wikipedians with academic libraries. The Wikipedian gains remote access to all of the library's online resources and the library expands the impact of its collections when the Visiting Scholar improves Wikipedia articles in a topic area of mutual interest. The program was developed and piloted by the Wikipedia Library and, as of last week, run by the Wiki Education Foundation in the United States and Canada (the geographic limitation only applies to institutions; Scholars can be from anywhere).
In addition to the five open positions -- and the primary reason I'm posting here -- Visiting Scholars now accepts applications year-round, regardless of whether or not there are open positions. If you're an experienced Wikipedian who wants access to the kinds of databases, ebook collections, media collections, and other resources accessible through a university library, you're welcome to apply. At the Wiki Education Foundation, we're steadily engaged with university faculty and staff interested to work with Wikipedia and we'll be recruiting new Visiting Scholar sponsors based on where community members' interests are.
Visiting Scholars seems particularly relevant to editors coming to the Resource Exchange, so I'd urge you to point people to Wikipedia:Visiting Scholars if they meet the basic requirements of at least 1000 edits, an account at least 1 year old, and experience building content. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visiting Scholars 

message: I accidentally marked this project as inactive and then undid it. By "just kidding" I meant it was a mistake, not that I was playing a practical joke. Is this project active though? I've been trying to mark projects inactive as I come across them looking for help. There hadn't been discussion on this page for a while, so at first I marked it inactive, but then I realized that people have been made recent edits on the front page. PermStrump(talk) 02:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite active,  and it has the benefit of a broad consensus, so  needs talk page edits only rarely.  John M Baker (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry then! I was surprised to see all the activity on the other side b/c I guess the other projects I go to use the talkpage for other reasons for discussing articles as opposed to upkeep of the front page. I was looking for somewhere to ask a question about if a source was peer reviewed, but I think RSN noticeboard was the right place in the end. Thanks for the response! PermStrump(talk) 16:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this project active? 

message: I have been in discussion with a few other wikipedians about what I completed for a request. I have learned how to go through Google Books, and, if they are PD in the place they were first published, I have figured out how to, in less than a week, have them available for everyone to see in full view. I have made a preliminary guide at User:IJReid/Google Books trick, and, as mentioned on the talk page of it, it could eventually be made into an all-out subproject, where people can learn on their own how to use it and apply it whenever they need, which, over time, could result is a huge amount of old, PD books and papers being fully available for everyone, with new publications available to be released every year. What thoughts do you people have? IJReid discuss 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: TL;DR: You want us to send a custom email to Google every time we come across a PD book on Google Books, just to see if they are kind enough to make all pages visible. Your proposal doesn't quite make it clear: did you try this already, with success? In any case, I think it's a gross misunderstanding of Google's business model to think that they need to come up with the good arguments why not to make PD books fully available for free. They don't. It's in their interest not to: they can sell access (and judging by this proposal, they actually do that), and they can control access. I'm also certain their legal team have more profitable activities to tend to. Sure, it's probably worth a shot one or two times, but unlikely to prove a big hit. The vast majority of times it's libraries, Archive.org, Wikisource, Project Gutenberg, etc. that digitize PD materials with less caveats. When I started reading the proposal, I thought you were suggesting using some hack to mass download all the books on Google Books, verify their copyright status independently, and upload the PD ones onto Commons. Now that would have been something. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess it that makes sense. I honestly wish I could hack that, but I don't know how many national security agencies I can handle on my tail, and I'm not yet ready to reroute all my computer usage through a different country. But anyways, on the resource request page you guys mention Sci-Hub, which is even more fringe than what I have found, so do you think it would be a big deal if you guys just mentioned that for PD books that you can find in Google Books, they can complete what I have done on their own and avoid having to request for someone else to do the same thing? IJReid discuss 05:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new subproject 

message: Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate. 
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new project needs you 

message: I've worked with  to create this search template to aid new editors in locating references:
: 
From what I can tell it is widely used at this point and hopefully has resulted in helping newer editors find the information that they need. A problem that is very common in ProjectMed is the strict guidelines for medical citations. For this, I developed this code (not a template):
There are medical and health articles, however, about topics that can be sourced with non WP:MEDRS citations. These sections of medical articles have to do with the history and cultural sections of a medical article. I have started to add a combination of these two templates to talk pages like this. The result is:
:::::Non-medical and health content can be found by the use of the following search aid:
I am leaving this message here for my own reasons. Basically, I didn't bring these two templates up for discussion in Project Med because the discussions tend to get bogged down. So I was bold and developed these combination search tools on my own. I hope you find this information valuable.
:Best Regards,
::Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Newer search aids

message: Over at the village pump. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of interest 

message: Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured quality source review RFC 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
* Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
* From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
* Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project 

message: I working on an article and found this article on the subject in a search. If anyone with access can get me a copy that would be great. Thanks. MB 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT article 

message: Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX copyrights and linking. Nemo 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright implications of links to CiteSeerX 

message: this page looks amazing. I would be glad to help out. please feel free to post any ideas. thanks!!! 
'tagging a colleague. hi . I just found this existing WikiProject. this is pretty cool, isn't it? I'd like to invite some of the WikiProject coordinators to maybe add some ideas here. do you like this as a venue? 
to others, by the way, I am the Project Coordinator at WikiProject History. Glad to help here if I can. please feel free to be in touch. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page 

message: Hello! I am doing research on a topic that is discussed in older New York Times articles (pre 1970's). I can see some of the preview text and the date, but I cannot see the author's name. It seems that only current subscribers can see the author's name. Are there editors who are NYT subscribers that can look up the author information? This must be a frequent problem. The Times is such a valuable resource for citation. Thank you!Thriley (talk) 08:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many editors who can do this.  Just make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.  John M Baker (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: New York Times articles (pre 1970's)

message: Not only is the  book itself a mess, its article is, too. Template/ping  me if you propose its deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy]] 

message: I'm working on the Richard Kuklinski article, and the best and most indepth source is the New Jersey Record. However there's no free online resource. 
* Markos, Kibret (June 27, 2006). "Ice Man Book Ridiculed as More Fiction than Fact". The Record. New Jersey.
* "Ice Man: Tells of Killings". The Record. Hackensack, New Jersey. September 2, 1993. pp. 4, 82.
* Sanderson, Bill (May 26, 1988). "'Iceman' Pleads Guilty - Gets two more life sentences for murders". The Record. Hackensack, New Jersey. pp. A-1, A-18.
* Gravano: "Bull" Rejected 2003 Plea Deal in Case of Slain Cop". The Record. March 8, 2006.
* Consoli, Jim, "Dumon's Iceman claims 100 killings", The record, 02 sep 1993, A3, D2
Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , you should post this request on this page; just click on the "Click here to create a new request" link and go from there. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Jersey articles 

message: A Request for Comment on external links to library resources, which may relate to this project, has started: Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC: External links to library resources. Opinions, knowledge, and suggestions are sought. Please join in. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: External links to library resources: RfC