This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Resource Exchange page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming

Archive

Contents 1 Another way of doing this? 2 the New York Times 3 Bibliographic record keeping discussion. 4 User subpage libraries 5 Template:Article resources 6 Sharing Full / Physical Resources 7 EB 8 getting the word out... 9 Fair Copyright in Research Works Act 10 Cleaning up Resource Requests 11 Potential massive copyright infringement; can your project help? 12 www.accessmylibrary.com 13 Encarta being discontinued 14 Active? 15 Wikipedians with offline sources 16 GFDL resources, can they still be used? 17 tutorial on quickly finding high-quality sources 18 Archiving of unfilled requests

[edit] Another way of doing this?

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)

[edit] the New York Times

Good News. According to their news page, [1] : "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)

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)

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)

[edit] Bibliographic record keeping discussion.

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)

archive link. -- 75.213.238.122 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 75.213.238.122 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User subpage libraries

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)

I've responded at the Village pump. Key (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

archive link. -- 75.213.238.122 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 75.213.238.122 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Article resources

WikiProject Resource Exchange
Paid Subscription access GFDL resources Free online resources Public domain resources Public domain image resources Free image resources Free sound resources Non-PD resources Maps Bibliographies

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)

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)

Thats fine, we can wait on it. No hurry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging is done, go for it now. Key to the city 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Just changed it ;) and great merge job. --Quiddity 17:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I merged the content of the template to the new navigation box of the project. There were too many templates on this page. Have been improving the organisation of the project and made it less of a mess. But the template is still great for on related project pages. Key (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sharing Full / Physical Resources

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 [2] and perhaps [3] 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)

I've also implemented a "library" page in my user-space user:Davemon/Library, as an example, any feedback welcome. --Davémon (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] EB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Britannica_WebShare --Historiograf (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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)"

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)

Sample: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1192818/Wikipedia --Historiograf (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] getting the word out...

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)

Do they still do those annoying watchlist messages? I haven't seen one in a while...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

People can add reminders to their userpages/user talk pages, maybe. We could also add a note to the default greeting. II | (t - c) 04:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

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: [4][5][6][7]

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)

UPDATE: This bill has been reintroduced [8]. Track it on Govtrack [9]. II | (t - c) 17:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up Resource Requests

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 {{resolved}} for clarity.

Possibly we could enlist a helpful bot-master to set up archiving too... Franamax (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Potential massive copyright infringement; can your project help?

• Powell, Arthur William Baden. New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1

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)

It seems that some members of the project have accessed the book. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] www.accessmylibrary.com

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Encarta being discontinued

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

[edit] Active?

Just wondering before I join... How active is this project?Drew Smith What I've done 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Multi-part answer:

• The project is active in that I look at every single request that comes in. A few other people do too. Depressingly, I either don't have access to the sources, the request is too arcane, or either of Droptone or Someguy are there first. :( Every so often, I win. ;)
• Requests here are perhaps every couple of days to every week. The problem is not so much supply as demand. I've tried to counter that by repeating wherever I can "ask at the WP:LIBRARY!". This is the secret weapon of Wikipedia, it's the answer to "I can't read your subscription-only source".
• If you have access to sources and/or are willing to do research, please do join up, put these pages on your watchlist, and publicise it wherever you can. We need critical mass, the more the better. This is a crown jewel, help to polish it!
• I've a few thoughts on the overall structure and how we can better organize and archive the requests. Those should wait until more people are active.

Climb aboard man, we need more people shovelling coal into the firebox! Franamax (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to help out, and can help implement any structural changes you want done. I agree, we need alot mor active members. Perhaps a link on the refdesk (indeed, I thought the refdesk was what this project is before I actually visited it). If we can get at least five or six active (available everyday), we could try to get a link onto the mainpage as well. This seems like the kind of thing that, if it works, should be right there between help desk and refdesk. We could possibly even change it from a project to an official... um... forum like those are once it takes off. Perhaps even called "The Librarians"? I've been involved in re-vitalizing wikiproject Aquarium Fish, with a tiny amount of success, but this one seems like it has huge potential. Please let me know if I'm being too forward, or if my ideas are way off base. I also understand enough of the syntax to create userboxes, templates, and portals, so if we need any of those, just give me a shout.Drew Smith What I've done 04:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians with offline sources

A new category has been created at Category:Wikipedians by access to offline sources. It's in a pretty rough state right now, so all comments and participation are welcome! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a great way to promulgate access to sources, but it has the same drawbacks as the Shared Resources page: it's one-way. Editors can add themselves to the page, or the category, but when they lose interest or depart Wikipedia altogether, their names never exit the page/category. So basically you've constructed a historical record of anyone who ever had a passing interest in the topic ('tho well-meaning, don't get me wrong) and decided to put their name in. That's of no practical value at all to the current editor seeking access to sources.

I really believe the answer is open outcry at the Resource Request page, and a proper system of archiving resolved and unresolved requests, similar to what happens at the RefDesks. Placing all requests at one central place will only enliven the whole project, and all requests can be served from this one place. With respect, until the need for fulltext of fish-related and who's-who-17th-ed articles completely overwhelm this resource-request page, I'd suggest the better course would be to just generally publicise this page as a resource, and keep it on your watchlist. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I never thought of that. I saw cryptics proposal at the village pump and jumped on board, but never thought about the "historical record" aspect of it. I guess I'll join up as this is probably the best place to go.Drew Smith What I've done 03:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL resources, can they still be used?

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)

[edit] tutorial on quickly finding high-quality sources

The Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts article suggests: "When faced with unreferenced information, an editor should make an effort to find sources before deleting material."

Several people have commented that a person should be able to find a reference (if one exists) in less than 60 seconds. Is there a tutorial on quickly finding high-quality sources? Something analogous to the Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial ? If not, could we somehow make such a tutorial? (I first asked this question at Wikipedia talk:Improving referencing efforts#tutorial on quickly finding high-quality sources. The people there suggested that I ask here). --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"a person should be able to find a reference (if one exists) in less than 60 seconds" is totally unrealistic. For example if using Google:

• You may need to try different search strings.
• It will take 15-30 secs just to scan each page of hits to see if any are revelant.
• On some topics, the first 10 pages of hits are sales pages and the good stuff is after than.
• Then you have check that a hit is reliable.
• Then you have read the source thoroughly to check what it really says.
• And that assumes the subject matter is fairly simple. An academic article may need a hour or more to understand. --Philcha (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving of unfilled requests

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 [10] 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)