Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Archive 1

message: I like the idea. It will sure prove helpful! → JARED (t)  21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :) I've been getting frustrated with a complete lack of access to many mainstream journals. I just wish I had more to offer. ---J.S  (T/C) 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice idea 

message: I'd suggest you somehow merge with these already established projects:
*Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service
*Wikipedia:Research resources
So as not to duplicate efforts. (The 1st is linked at the bottom of Wikipedia:Community Portal#Editing, the 2nd is linked from the 1st's "See also" section. Not very visible I'll admit, but that's how I knew of them ;) —Quiddity 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was afrade that this would happen... something redundent!  I'll leave a soft-redirect under the newspaper section to Newspapers and magazines request service... but Wikipedia:Research resources looks to be fairly dead at the moment.  Still a huge useful information.  I'll certainly cross-link to both projects, and see if I can carve out a niche for this one. :) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll likely get more assistance from others if you revive the Wikipedia:Research resources project instead of trying to replace it with this one, as dozens of people will have it watchlisted, and will join in if they see frequent activity. It's always better to merge, than to fork, if possible. Anyway, I'll leave up to you :) —Quiddity 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm your probably right.  I'll try to think of a way to merge/revive. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, please revive Wikipedia:Research resources if you can! It's a good project, and there's probably new people now who want to participate. Quiddity's right, if some of us see activity over there, we'll pitch in :) Good luck no matter which route you take! -- phoebe 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge (old discussion: SEE NEW SECTION BELOW) 

message: I've just created a userbox, , to link to LibraryThing catalogs, which might be useful to this project. --Ptcamn 22:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting... I've never heard of that project before. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LibraryThing 

message: To make this project really useful, it should get noticed more.
What I mean is, there should be more links to this page, links in a noticeable but constructive way of course. like templates that reach big groups of users and so on (the userboxes are a start). Anybody any ideas? Because you can't just start linking everywhere at random. Key to the city 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I tagged a the articles that were related to references and brought them into this project... I'm not exactly sure how else we can advertise without getting slapped for spam. :) ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: A while ago I was playing with the idea of implementing the same goal as this project through a searchable database.  See my proposal at User:Postdlf/library.  I'm not a software guy so I don't know how to implement it, but I thought that was really secondary to figuring out how it would function on the user-end.  I appreciate all thoughts as to how feasible this is to implement and how well this would work in practice.  Feel free to post privately on my talk page too if you prefer.  Postdlf 19:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another way of doing this? 

message: Good News. According to their news page,  :
"The New York Times will stop charging for access to parts of its Web site, effective at midnight tonight [including]  TimesSelect,  ....
In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free."
Spread the word. DGG (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool. Glad they are opening up the PD stuff too... they didn't need to do that and it's a great public service. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 04:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The progress on transcribing NYT articles is improving since they made this announcement.  See s:NYT. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the New York Times

message: On the Village pump (technical) there is a discussion to simplify the citing of commonly used sources, and more generally to improve our bibliographic record keeping.  There are a number of options presented, some of which are ready for prime-time, and an organised effort is required to consider their suitability and prepare a well rounded proposal if any option appears to be workable. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: archive link. -- 75.213.238.122 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 75.213.238.122 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliographic record keeping discussion.

message: Considering that a comprehensive list of the books Wikipedians own would be difficult to manage on your Shared Resources page, I have made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Shared resources/library that users maintain their own library subpages, and add categories to aid interested parties to navigate there.  I'd like to know what you think. Gwinva (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded at the Village pump. Key (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: archive link. -- 75.213.238.122 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 75.213.238.122 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User subpage libraries 

message: The template Article resources is lacking a reference to this little project. Should we take the initiative and ad a link? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great idea. Maybe wait until after the merge, so we know the definitive page name of the project though. But we can fix the template in case of a name change afterwards too. So your pick. Key to the city 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine, we can wait on it. No hurry. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging is done, go for it now. Key to the city 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No wait. I just saw: the header of the template links to our project now. So it solved itself. Key to the city 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just changed it ;) and great merge job. --Quiddity 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Article resources 

message: I was going to do this at the village pump, but saw the discussion about this wiki-project.
Sharing resources that editors have owned but no longer want to keep. 
For example an editor might have a book or a journal on an area of research, add to an article, cite the book/journal, and then move away from that area of research or need to otherwise relieve himself of said object. Wouldn't it be great if other editors could then get hold of that resource? They could perhaps improve the statements being cited, or find more useful information to cite from it than the original editor did.
There are models such as  and perhaps  which may work.
Personally, I'd rather post a book/journal to someone than have to scan or re-type an article if information was requested. The readit-swapit model has the added advantage of getting something in return. Perhaps this is a different enough idea to be a different wikiproject. Further there may be some complex issues regarding anonymity and abuse etc.  Any thoughts?
Davémon (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never thought about that before, but it's a good idea. Not sure if this fits in this project or would better be an independent project either. I'll  do some thinking about it. Key (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharing Full / Physical Resources 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Britannica_WebShare
--Historiograf (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: copied from that link: "Answered on the Help Desk.  Please don't cross-post questions, as it causes duplication of effort.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: At the Help Desk, the answer was that this page (Resource Exchange) is the right place to talk about it, so I'll copy the discussion from WP:VPM:
As partner of WebShare with my weblog http://archiv.twoday.net/topics/English+Corner/ I have a free one year account and am able to make EB articles free by linking to them (no limit). Let's imagine some possibilities for WP:
* Wikipedian A asks webpublisher and Wikipedian B for assistance on his discussion page or a WP: page because he wishes to read some EB articles as background information (no copyvio, of course!!) for WP articles (feel free to ask e.g. me). B gives him the links by writing them on the page.
* Wikipedian C puts free EB links in (i) the weblinks section, (ii) the reference section of an article.
* Wikipedian D makes here a list of known free EB articles.
I don't know if the links also expire after a year but I don't think so.
Some thoughts? --Historiograf (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EB 

message: I think it would be a good idea to brainstorm on ways to get the word out!  WP:V is a pillar of wikipedia and I think this project serves a very important role in verification of sources when the reader may not have easy access to a library, etc. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 21:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they still do those annoying watchlist messages? I haven't seen one in a while...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a bot post a message to the WikiProjects might help. I don't think it would violate Wikipedia:Canvassing as long as it is neutral in tone and useful to every project.—RJH (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottleneck at WP:GAN, wikiproject B-class reviews, etc., is that there aren't that many dedicated Wikipedians who are comfortable with every aspect of the review: fair use of images, core content guidelines, copyediting, vetting sources, etc, in addition to the subject material of the article, and dealing with the repercussions of criticizing other people's work.  Aren't there a great number of Wikipedians who take pride in knowing good sources and being able to point a finger at bad ones?  When an article shows up at a review process, couldn't someone vet the sources (as User:Ealdgyth and others do at WP:FAC), and perhaps make suggestions about better sources, if they have that knowledge and want to show it off?  WP:RSN is already available to vet sources, of course, but not on this scale.  This seems like a perfect "niche" project, that might be widely attractive to anyone who vets sources as part of their profession or hobby or education. I bet if we talked with some professors and librarians, we could get the personnel in place to make this work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  getting the word out... 

message: This bill (GovTrack link) is a bill to keep on eye on -- add a GovTrack tracker to it. It is an attempt to shut down the new mandate supporting PubMedCentral, that government-funded articles be made freely accessible. The following links cover it: 
While it would seem impossible for such a blatantly abusive bill to pass, I'm no longer surprised by the government. II | (t - c) 04:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Copyright in Research Works Act 

message: Is there any standard on trimming these requests? People who asked for something in early 2007 are not that likely to still be checking back for an answer. When do we throw in the towel? Is six months long enough?
I also wouldn't mind keeping filled requests around for a month or so, so that new arrivals can see that this is an active project and feel good about asking for help (or better yet, joining the helpers :). We could mark filled requests with  for clarity.
Possibly we could enlist a helpful bot-master to set up archiving too... Franamax (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiving sounds great, and we could keep stuff done within the past month in a special part of the archives, if you like. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up Resource Requests 

message: * Powell, Arthur William Baden. New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 
Hello. It has recently been confirmed that a contributor to Wikipedia has pasted content from a book into perhaps 1,000 or more articles, but the book is evidently hard to come by. (I've listed it above.) Is anyone here able to help get a copy of this book to help with the clean up effort? More information can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A very large and widespread CopyVio problem! (until it archives) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#A very large and widespread CopyVio problem! This one looks like it could be a headache. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that some members of the project have accessed the book. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential massive copyright infringement; can your project help?

message: I get a lot of interesting hits at this site when search for sources, but it says I get access through "my local library", and my local library doesn't know what they're talking about.  How would I get access to the full articles? - Dank (push to talk) 15:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific example so I could try it myself? It sounds like maybe they just don't have the fulltext available. Also, have you checked what online access your local library has by itself? My Vancouver Public Library subscription gives me a huge range of resources online. Some of those are just citations though, and then there's a "check branches for a print copy" button, kind of what your "local library" message sounds like, only integrated. Franamax (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now I have 7 days of access, and they say they'll give me more info when the 7 days runs out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.accessmylibrary.com 

message: For any articles which use Encarta, you should be aware of this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encarta being discontinued 

message: Now that Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites are Creative Commons can WP:FDLR Wikipedia:GNU Free Documentation License resources still be used? If not could an Admin. please delete this page. Kathleen.wright5 02:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL resources, can they still be used? 

message: I've removed all the resource requests from 2007, on the premise that they are now stale, i.e. the original posters have probably given up checking here every day for two years for an answer. Except for December 2007, which question was answered less than a month ago. :) I stuck them all in /Filled requests  which seems a little silly, since they're unfilled, but I didn't want to create another page. Review / reversion of my actions here is welcome! Franamax (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of unfilled requests