Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Databases/Requests: Difference between revisions
Figureofnine (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
::Thanks for the update. I use both those archives, and find them very useful! The ProQuest NewsStand archive that was available through my library was particularly useful for its content from the 1990s and early 21st C though. Would be great if you managed to get something. I'll watch developments eagerly. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 15:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
::Thanks for the update. I use both those archives, and find them very useful! The ProQuest NewsStand archive that was available through my library was particularly useful for its content from the 1990s and early 21st C though. Would be great if you managed to get something. I'll watch developments eagerly. [[User:Keri|Keri]] ([[User talk:Keri|talk]]) 15:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
::ProQuest Historical, as I think it is called, would be helpful by archiving newspapers not on the Internet. ProQuest Congressional, as noted above, would also be invaluable. [[User:Figureofnine|Figureofnine]] <small>([[User talk:Figureofnine|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Figureofnine|contribs]])</small> 17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
::ProQuest Historical, as I think it is called, would be helpful by archiving newspapers not on the Internet. ProQuest Congressional, as noted above, would also be invaluable. [[User:Figureofnine|Figureofnine]] <small>([[User talk:Figureofnine|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Figureofnine|contribs]])</small> 17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht == |
|||
[http://www.vr-elibrary.de/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht] Lots of publications especially about humanities and theology/religion studies, but also about philosophy and history; most ebooks and journals are in German but there are also several publications in English. [[User:Continua Evoluzione|Continua Evoluzione]] ([[User talk:Continua Evoluzione|talk]]) 13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:32, 26 June 2015
Interested in us investigating a partnership with a particular publisher or resource? Add the following to the list below:
- Publication or database name, publisher, website link, # potential users, Username suggesting
- Suggestions
Taylor and Francis Online
Taylor and Francis Online Hundreds of peer-reviewed journals and thousands of ebooks, including Routledge titles. RolandR (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, would be highly useful. Hippo99 (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Me too. Routledge is a major publisher of religion and social science-related articles. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Access to these journals etc would be an excellent aid to editing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, would be useful. JimRenge (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just looking for an article, and it's in that database. (The article: Bonnie Blackwell (2004). "How the jilt triumphed over the slut: the evolution of an epithet, 1660-1780". Women's Writing 11. - It's for the Jilt shop article - if anyone can email me a copy, I'd appreciate it.) --Rosekelleher (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters.We have tried to get a foot in the door several times in the last 6 months: we have gotten some more promising conversation from some contacts w/i TandF in the last month from people we met at conferences. I hope to be able to report progress soon.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Astinson (WMF)! These are very promising news. Your endeavor is highly appreciated. Hippo99 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the contacts with the publisher. I agree with the other editors here that the Taylor and Francis Online materials are very helpful for improving articles here on Wikipedia, and I would be glad to refer to them with the usual Wikipedia Library credit to the publisher if they become available to us. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Where do we find "the usual Wikipedia Library credit"? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters.We have tried to get a foot in the door several times in the last 6 months: we have gotten some more promising conversation from some contacts w/i TandF in the last month from people we met at conferences. I hope to be able to report progress soon.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fleshing this our a little: T&F has a complete digitized archive of the journal Labor History, which would be gold to me in my work. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. We are almost there: they have had a series of delays through their end: pay attention for our next distribution, I think we will have a group of selections available for donation, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts. Please do ping us again if something with T&F opens up. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- It would be great to get access; I paid to get an article from the T&F site recently ... but it did turn out to be very useful! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you so much in advance, Astinson (WMF)!! I agree with Carrite - please ping us upon availability. Hippo99 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. We are almost there: they have had a series of delays through their end: pay attention for our next distribution, I think we will have a group of selections available for donation, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Fleshing this our a little: T&F has a complete digitized archive of the journal Labor History, which would be gold to me in my work. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hippo99, Sagaciousphil, JimRenge, RolandR, and Kautilya3: Now open, see WP:Taylor & Francis. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @Rosekelleher, WeijiBaikeBianji, and Carrite: as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
South African Government Gazette, Greengazette
South African Government Gazette, Greengazette, http://www.greengazette.co.za/, Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa Nathan121212 (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Nathan121212: Is there an organization with larger holdings that publishes or gives access to the Gazette alongside other works? We try to get access to resources that would impact a wide range of users. In the past partnerships from small publishers don't have the kind of impact across Wikipedia and our user base as other ones do. We will certainly try contacting them, but are wondering if there is another route for access/contact that might be more fruitful, Sadads (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Sadads: Not that I am aware of. A Google search brings nothing new up. According to its website, Greengazette give access to Gazettes from all nine of South Africa's provincial government as well as legal notices and patent journals. Thanks for giving this a look. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Nathan121212: Cool beans. We probably won't look into this for another month or two: we have a ton of tasks right now that need to be finished up before we start too many more new partnerships, Sadads (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Nathan121212: I tried a digital communication with them a couple months ago, and have not received a response. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Nathan121212: Cool beans. We probably won't look into this for another month or two: we have a ton of tasks right now that need to be finished up before we start too many more new partnerships, Sadads (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Sadads: Not that I am aware of. A Google search brings nothing new up. According to its website, Greengazette give access to Gazettes from all nine of South Africa's provincial government as well as legal notices and patent journals. Thanks for giving this a look. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Nathan121212: Is there an organization with larger holdings that publishes or gives access to the Gazette alongside other works? We try to get access to resources that would impact a wide range of users. In the past partnerships from small publishers don't have the kind of impact across Wikipedia and our user base as other ones do. We will certainly try contacting them, but are wondering if there is another route for access/contact that might be more fruitful, Sadads (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE journals , magazines and conference proceedings http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/guesthome.jsp
- also IEEE standards ie http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/index.html
- One thing the IEEE materials would be good for is biographical information about leading scientists and inventors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Genealogybank
Genealogybank.com - I think this would be hugely helpful for editors involved in local research for things like country estates and small rural communities and to trace ownership and family lines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Genealogybank has a pretty extensive Newspaper collection. I second reaching out to them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support for same reason as ThaddeusB, and for local history research per nom, but not for "tracing ownership and family lines", which sounds like what WP:NOR tells us not to get into. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The Times archive
The Times archives.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Irish Newspaper Archives
The Irish Newspaper Archives , "The largest digital archive of Irish newspapers in the world, providing access to millions of newspaper articles spanning 300+ years of Irish history."♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times Archives
The Los Angeles Times Archives -millions of articles since 1881 - I know myself and a few west coast and film project editors who'd find this tremendously valuable
- -Especially if NY Times proves unobtainable. A very right wing paper for the early 20th C but a good source as the century progressed. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Toronto Star Archives
Toronto Star Archives -millions of newspapers from 1887-2010
- The above are just possibilities, don't want to burden you with any more!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- No worries @Dr. Blofeld: we always want feedback on what we are missing, and what is particularly useful. We can make assumptions based on our experience, but you never know, Sadads (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- The above are just possibilities, don't want to burden you with any more!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Access to Research
Access to Research This covers over 8000 journals and over 10 million academic articles. In the UK its available for access in libraries but not home-reading. Apwoolrich (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Apwoolrich: Thats a really interesting idea. It seems to be mostly designed for public libraries to join. But I wonder if we could support Wikimedia UK in getting vpn-like access to the project: would help us focus our other partnerships away from British editors.... I will look into it, Sadads (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can access and search the site from home, using my library card's number, but I cannot get beyond reading summaries of the articles. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Apwoolrich: I tried several rounds of pinging: no response. If you would be interested in taking the lead on pitching a partnership with, especially because it is such a regional platform/tool, I would be very much interested in giving you the tools/help. And/or we could involve Wikimedia UK, in that process, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I can access and search the site from home, using my library card's number, but I cannot get beyond reading summaries of the articles. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Apwoolrich: Thats a really interesting idea. It seems to be mostly designed for public libraries to join. But I wonder if we could support Wikimedia UK in getting vpn-like access to the project: would help us focus our other partnerships away from British editors.... I will look into it, Sadads (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, please. All the databases I have access to so far have a notable paucity of veterinary sources. If this has 8,000 journals, I think that could fill some of that gap. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree this would be an excellent resource to gain access to. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Newspaperarchive
Newspaperarchive.com Site claims to be world's largest newspaper resource with "145+ million pages and growing" papers dating back to 1607. I think it would be tremendously valuable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. Includes the Jamaica Gleaner 1834-Present; a key resource for that country. -Arb. (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not done@Dr. Blofeld and Arb: I am going to make a judgement call that working with them is not in the best interest of our Wikipedia readers who might in turn subscribe to the service (see this article documenting complaints and the discussion of problems at our article on the company. Moreover, the BBB rates them as an F in responses. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Astinson (WMF) Has it occurred to you that a rival was responsible for that content in the wiki article? It doesn't seem neutral to me not to mention the error claim being 11 years out of date. It would be like comparing wikipedia in 2001 to today! It seems poor judgement to dismiss a resource with 145 million pages outright like that just because one or two people said something negative about it. I've done some searches on it and it often picks up sources which would likely be of great benefit to wikipedia. The F score if you look is mostly based on complaints NOT related to the resource itself. 89 complaints on Billing / Collection Issues was the largest one. Out of the 200,000 odd stated users of the resource there's just 140 complaints in 3 years. Do you think that's a fair judgement to make that it's not in the best interest of wikipedia readers? Look at the bottom of the page here for the esteemed institutions which they claim regularly use it. If Harv, Princeton, NY Times, CNN, National Library of Medicine and The Wall Street Journal thinks it's good enough then surely there's more good to it than might seem apparent?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Astinson (WMF): Two current/recent deletion discussions that would have been easily resolved by access to the Gleaner print archive; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Dalhouse & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew Juvenile Remand Centre. -Arb. (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Arb: Thanks for letting me know! We have had some very successful discussions with Newspaperarchive, @Dr. Blofeld: convinced me to reach out to them elsewhere; before they give us a donation, they are making some changes to their software which will make them a better resource for both our editors and our readers. We hope to have this access in the next couple months, but not in the near future (less than a month), which is unfortunate for these discussions, but will benefit us in the long term. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's useful to know. -Arb. (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Arb: Thinking about these particular situations: you could draftify the two articles for deletion or pull on copies from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/ if they get deleted . Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's useful to know. -Arb. (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Arb: Thanks for letting me know! We have had some very successful discussions with Newspaperarchive, @Dr. Blofeld: convinced me to reach out to them elsewhere; before they give us a donation, they are making some changes to their software which will make them a better resource for both our editors and our readers. We hope to have this access in the next couple months, but not in the near future (less than a month), which is unfortunate for these discussions, but will benefit us in the long term. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Astinson (WMF): Two current/recent deletion discussions that would have been easily resolved by access to the Gleaner print archive; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Dalhouse & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Andrew Juvenile Remand Centre. -Arb. (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Astinson (WMF) Has it occurred to you that a rival was responsible for that content in the wiki article? It doesn't seem neutral to me not to mention the error claim being 11 years out of date. It would be like comparing wikipedia in 2001 to today! It seems poor judgement to dismiss a resource with 145 million pages outright like that just because one or two people said something negative about it. I've done some searches on it and it often picks up sources which would likely be of great benefit to wikipedia. The F score if you look is mostly based on complaints NOT related to the resource itself. 89 complaints on Billing / Collection Issues was the largest one. Out of the 200,000 odd stated users of the resource there's just 140 complaints in 3 years. Do you think that's a fair judgement to make that it's not in the best interest of wikipedia readers? Look at the bottom of the page here for the esteemed institutions which they claim regularly use it. If Harv, Princeton, NY Times, CNN, National Library of Medicine and The Wall Street Journal thinks it's good enough then surely there's more good to it than might seem apparent?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not done@Dr. Blofeld and Arb: I am going to make a judgement call that working with them is not in the best interest of our Wikipedia readers who might in turn subscribe to the service (see this article documenting complaints and the discussion of problems at our article on the company. Moreover, the BBB rates them as an F in responses. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- I am very glad to hear this resource may be available w/in the next few months. Great news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded. Includes the Jamaica Gleaner 1834-Present; a key resource for that country. -Arb. (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support—I've found this to be a very valuable resource in the past, but due to a change in my current economic circumstances, I had to let my subscription lapse. Those willing to log in through Facebook can access a limited number of articles each day, which helps, but it pales in comparison to the productivity I had with a full subscription in the past. Imzadi 1979 → 00:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Appears to have a large stack of sources, evenmore that Newspapers.com --Peaceworld 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Gale Reference & Research
Gale Reference & Research Database of many otherwise difficult-to-access sources, including Associated Press, Chatham House, Punch, Smithsonian Collections, many other press archives, and thousands of online books. RolandR (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Gale offers interesting coverage of some useful sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
ProQuest
ProQuest: It began publishing doctoral dissertations in 1939 and has published more than 3 million searchable dissertations and theses. JimRenge (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree, and suggest looking into some of their ancillary products, such as ProQuest Congressional or ProQuest Legislative Insight; while some of these primarily bring in primary sources, or otherwise freely-available GPO publications, it's much more easily searchable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv and JimRenge::I have started a promising conversation on this front, though the first partnerships w/ PQ might not be the specific databases you request (once in the door, though, these tend to become much easier.)Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on the contact; ProQuest would be useful for me too. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Their Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive and Historical Newspapers databases would be very useful. The latter one includes The Times of India, one of the most reputed Indian newspapers. It would be very useful for editors working on Indian history during the latter half of the 19th century and whole of the 20th century. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for working on the contact; ProQuest would be useful for me too. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv and JimRenge::I have started a promising conversation on this front, though the first partnerships w/ PQ might not be the specific databases you request (once in the door, though, these tend to become much easier.)Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, and suggest looking into some of their ancillary products, such as ProQuest Congressional or ProQuest Legislative Insight; while some of these primarily bring in primary sources, or otherwise freely-available GPO publications, it's much more easily searchable. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this should be very helpful. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- As an editor working on rather controversial topics in the Indian sphere, the Times has a bit of a dodgy reputation, particularly for being even more sensationalist, and poorer with fact-checking and coverage, than many of the other mainstream Indian papers. That said, there are still immense gaps in nitty-gritty uncontroversial Indian topics, and the Times would certainly help with those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would also highly appreciate having access to old newspapers for India such as the The Times of India. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3, Titodutta, and Vanamonde93: I can help out with the Times of India Archives if you have a specific citation in mind. Leave a note on my talk or at WP:RX - NQ (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's handy to know, NQ. The Times of India can be rather dodgy nowadays but historically (say, pre-1980s) it was a very good newspaper and access to it would likely be very useful. I have access only to the ProQuest Times (London) and Guardian databases and use them a lot ... but rarely when I already know the specific citation because in that circumstance the cite has almost always come from a reliable secondary source anyway. They're better used, like the BNL, for broad searches that then become more specific. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3, Titodutta, and Vanamonde93: I can help out with the Times of India Archives if you have a specific citation in mind. Leave a note on my talk or at WP:RX - NQ (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I really doubt they're gonna greenlight freely available downloads of pdfs of dissertations — that's big money to them — but this would be massively important if it could be swung. Carrite (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Wiley Online Library
Wiley Online Library: 2,000+ journals, more than 16,000+ books—good academic content. – Maky « talk » 09:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, it would be helpful. JimRenge (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I concur! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I came here especially to express interest in the Wiley Online Library, as it is full of many of the best sources for the topics I write about most regularly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to be able to access Soil Use and Management. Many people think of soil as unimportant but we get almost all our food from soil, it's the biggest carbon store after rocks and oceans, and yet soil is being lost and damaged, so this is an important journal.Rowan Adams (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, it would be helpful. JimRenge (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Maky, JimRange, Arbitrarily, and WeijiBaikiBianji: We have begun some positive talks with Wiley, so hopefully we will have something good to report soon, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's great! Just drop me a note if something develops. I'm going out of town next week for a conference (May 26–30), so hopefully I won't be too late on any sign-ups. – Maky « talk » 23:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Astinson (WMF):Any update on this? – Maky « talk » 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Maky: Sorry for not having it sooner: we expected the conversation to move quicker than it is. We already have most of the partners lined up for a late July/early August release, and we expect Wiley to be among them. Sorry for building up hopes. In the meantime, we just announced both Science magazine and WP:Taylor & Francis's biology collection which should help for your topical area; also, we have more accounts for WP:RSUK. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Karger Publishers
- Karger Publishers: 80+ journals—For WikiProject Primates, it would help to have access to Folia Primatologica. – Maky « talk » 09:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
SpringerLink
- SpringerLink: Scientific documents, including 5 million articles and 3 million chapters. – Maky « talk » 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I should also note that along with Elsevier and Wiley, this is another huge pay-wall for my research. (Although Karger would be very nice, these three are the "holy trinity" for my referencing.) Of particular note, this publisher is the biggest source of secondary sources (books and chapters, along with other articles) in my area of expertise. Though journal articles are very helpful, books and book chapters can be critical. – Maky « talk » 09:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded. YohanN7 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed with the other editors that SpringerLink is very useful. I'd be delighted to link to their resources with the usual Wikipedia Library acknowledgement. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Westlaw and Lexis
Westlaw and Lexis databases for U.S. court decisions. Huge area of low-hanging fruit for improving our articles on federally reported cases; huge collab opportunity with law schools, hugely important subject matter when knowledge of the law = justice, but said knowledge is locked behind a paywall. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Separately from the U.S. Federal and 50 State reported cases databases (that both WestLaw and Lexis have), also American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum, which are basically legal encyclopedias that provide the most bang-for-your-buck. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- As an alternative, Bloomberg Law would be nice: they have BNA products (good summaries of legal concepts), legal news sources, as well as the usual case reporters. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey @Mendaliv and Swatjester: we just opened up access WP:HeinOnline which includes a bunch of academic journals around law. Hopefully that is a good medium term solution: I am looking into Lexis and Westlaw in my next big outreach push. We have tried to contact Lexis before, but haven't found a good path. Sadads (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- At least Lexis/Nexis and maybe also Westlaw gave an account to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (also a 501(c)(3)) back when I worked there. So, definitely worth pursuing. And, yes, they are exceptionally useful for legal research. Lexis/Nexis has pre-Shepardized materials (maybe Westlaw does, too), which is basically precedent-tracking research done for us. I.e., not original research, which is very easy to engage in by accident when trying to figure out case law in civil law systems, which in turn is something that has to be done one way or another to make sense of many legal and public policy subjects. Better this be done by a source we can cite! — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Science, AAAS
Science, AAAS: One of the most influential and prestigious scientific journals. Many of the most noteworthy scientific discoveries are announced here. Anyone can get create an account that offers access to full text research articles and reports published more than one year ago back to 1997, but some of us need access to the current year's publications and older material. – Maky « talk » 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Maky: now open, see WP:AAAS. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Nature, NPG (Macmillan Publishers Limited)
Nature, NPG (Macmillan Publishers Limited): Another one of the most influential and prestigious scientific journals. Free registration seems to only give access to news and nothing else. – Maky « talk » 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I concur that one. This is the journal I requested the most articles in the "article exchange" space. I don't know if this journal is part of any databases or not, but some Wikipedians seems to have access to it since my request always got filled by different Wikipedians. Amqui (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
AAJ, CAJ, AJ
A lot of mountaineering achievements are recorded in various alpine journals which are primarily only available on a fee basis. It would be great to have subscriptions to American Alpine Journal (AAJ), Canadian Alpine Journal (CAJ) and the Alpine Journal (AJ). While there are some other good "mostly free" reference sites that myself and others use for articles on mountains/volcanoes and related landforms, it would be great if we could quote the mentioned journals directly when writing about the climbing history of mountains. RedWolf (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi @Redwolf:: do you have a sense of how many Wikipedians would use this resource? I ask, because Alpine Journal appears to have a free archive up until 2008 and I am not sure of the scale of demand/usage. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
LAT
Which of these should I sign up for if I want access to the historical archives of the Los Angeles Times? pbp 20:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Purplebackpack89: Proquest controls access to the LATimes collection more generally, and the LATimes also offers a service: at this time we don't have a donation from Proquest. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Cambridge_University_Press
Cambridge_University_Press or http: http://journals.cambridge.org - would be great to have access.I'm so tired (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (talk)
- @Tonton Bernardo: I have put in a second round of inquiries today, hopefully we will hear more :) Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Astinson (WMF): Thank you, Astinson. Rgds I'm so tired (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Tonton Bernardo: So, sad news: I think I got the first firm no we have had from an academic publisher, through one of my contacts at Cambridge. I hope to continue being persistant about it, but we haven't had any traction with them yet. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Astinson (WMF): Thanks again, Astinson. Rgds I'm so tired (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Tonton Bernardo: So, sad news: I think I got the first firm no we have had from an academic publisher, through one of my contacts at Cambridge. I hope to continue being persistant about it, but we haven't had any traction with them yet. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The New England Journal of Medicine
The New England Journal of Medicine, Massachusetts Medical Society, http://www.nejm.org, contributors on medical stuff. One of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals. Bloubéri (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Keilana: is doing outreach for this, and may have an update, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Brill Online
Brill Online, which is Brill Publishers' online resource, has a pretty good variety of sources. One particular source they carry in their Reference Works collection is the Recueil des Cours, or the collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. These include highly cited textbook-length documents generally covering public and private international law, as well as a lot of very good specific lectures on international law topics. They also carry a lot of journals and other books on a broader series of topics than international law. I think they have both French and English sources, and I believe they're all DOI-tagged (so would be very accessible). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, Brill is also publisher of the very useful and influential Encyclopedia of Islam (EI), which is also available through their Brill Online offering. I recall they have material available in German as well. Milliped (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I'm wrong, the sources aren't DOI tagged, but do all have useable permalinks to landing pages for each document. Some of the other reference resources they have cover biblical studies, Jewish studies, Islamic studies, medieval history, and Ancient Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew linguistics. Brill Online also covers e-books and journals of publications by Brill, Martinus Nijhoff, and a bunch of others. A lot of it does have to do with international law and international relations. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv and Milliped: We are talking to Brill right now, and we hope to have a donation available soon. Keep an eye out! Sadads (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Business Source Complete
Business Source Complete has archives of many magazines, and many other things. Journals and magazines, other sources, subject title list. I encountered this site because some citations mention it as an archive of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Emedia Professional, and Forbes magazines. These three particular magazines are essential sources of the history of video gaming, computing, and other types of media; they contain a business perspective on consumer stuff, like the relationships, contracts, and quotations behind the scenes as well as reviews. But BSC goes vastly beyond just those kinds of sources. I have no idea how much it costs. Is this type of resource appropriate to this project's pursuit? Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- You should know: BSC's archive of EGM only goes from Dec. 2000 to Jan. 2009. That said, it does have page scans for all those issues (some are really low-quality). Its coverage of Emedia Professional only goes from Jan. 1997 to Sept. 1999 (and only has some pagescans). Gale's Business Insights database is much better for Emedia Professional (but still only goes from Jan. 1997 to Aug. 1999). All that said, EBSCO's databases are nice and have pretty widespread coverage of a lot of topics, and I don't think I've seen a university library without it either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv: Thanks for your analysis. So you're saying this is a fairly essential resource? I wouldn't want to request a big and expensive subscription if it serves only a few things, or if it overlaps with other resources that we're already subscribed to. Are Forbes, Emedia Professional, and EGM all unavailable via existing Wikipedian online sources? Also use {{reply to }} so that we'll ever see your fine replies. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv and Smuckola: This is definitely a reasonable resource to ask for. We have had several Ebsco and Proquest databases on our radar, but both publishers have been hard to get a fruitful foot in the door for starting a donation. Ebsco is one of our priorities to talk to at every conferences, and we are hoping donations like WP:DynaMed which we got through networking, will help us build a relationship that allows us to ask for more opportunities.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Smuckola: I'm really not the right person to comment on whether a particular database is essential. All I know is that I've never seen an institute of higher education (whether a university or local college) in the United States that lacks EBSCO access. And I don't mean to say that it would just be a niche tool: EBSCO's databases are broad and uniformly scholarly. I'm not sure whether any of our other partner databases have those periodicals. I can tell you Questia doesn't, and I don't think JSTOR does either. So EBSCO would definitely fill some gaps, but not having seen a broad comparison of their products, I can't say for sure where those gaps lie. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv and Smuckola: Keep an eye out for our July/August release. We expect to have this along with several other exciting sources, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv: Thanks for your analysis. So you're saying this is a fairly essential resource? I wouldn't want to request a big and expensive subscription if it serves only a few things, or if it overlaps with other resources that we're already subscribed to. Are Forbes, Emedia Professional, and EGM all unavailable via existing Wikipedian online sources? Also use {{reply to }} so that we'll ever see your fine replies. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 17:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You should know: BSC's archive of EGM only goes from Dec. 2000 to Jan. 2009. That said, it does have page scans for all those issues (some are really low-quality). Its coverage of Emedia Professional only goes from Jan. 1997 to Sept. 1999 (and only has some pagescans). Gale's Business Insights database is much better for Emedia Professional (but still only goes from Jan. 1997 to Aug. 1999). All that said, EBSCO's databases are nice and have pretty widespread coverage of a lot of topics, and I don't think I've seen a university library without it either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
New York Times/Times Machine
Regarded as the newspaper of record in the United States. Pre-1923 material is up for free download as pdfs, but material 1/1/23 onward is paywalled. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- This would be very useful for copyright clean-up. I have just used the last of my ten free looks for the month of May. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Carrite and Diannaa: We have tried to get access to the NYT archives through multiple routes, but no success yet. Eventually... in the meantime, we have had a lot of success with other newspaper archives, and have 2-3 more in the pipeline, and WP:Newspapers.com has plenty of accounts, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
News aggregator
Can we have a news aggregator like Factiva ? 90.10.171.105 (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @90.10.171.105: Our partnerships with WP:Highbeam, WP:Newspapers.com and British Newspapers Archive already aggregate quite a bit of newspaper material. We are also negotiating access with several new historical newspaper databases.Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) publishes a wide range of documents, some of which are freely available and some of which are only available to ITU members. It would be good if Wikipedia editors had access to the full range of ITU publications. Examples of or lists of ITU publications for which access would be useful:
- World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators Database online: http://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-WTID.OL-2014
- ITU-T Recommendations and other publications: http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/publications/Pages/default.aspx
- ITU Publications: http://www.itu.int/en/publications/Pages/default.aspx
Early English Books Online (EEBO)
Covering print books published in England between 1473 and 1700, this database shows and allows searching of full scans of original English books: good for tracking down what happened, say, in a first edition of Milton. Covers literature, yes, but also history, religion, politics, philosophy, and many other areas. Link: [1] --Akhenaten0 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Akhenaten0: We started talks with them last year, but the team that was helping us, seems to have lost track of this request: I probably will restart the converstaion over the summer. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Reaxys
With Reaxys you can search Beilstein (Organic), Gmelin (Inorganic and organometallic) and Patent Chemistry databases. Reaxys' search, analysis, and workflow tools are designed around the needs and common tasks of users, including a synthesis planner to design the optimum synthesis route and multistep reactions to identify precursor reactions underlying synthesis of target compounds. Users can filter search results by key properties, synthesis yield, or other ranking criteria. Would be very useful for chemistry articles! Link: [2] Thepcmaniac (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (EEST)
- @Thepcmaniac: We are still in the pilot phase with Elsevier's current donation (WP:Elsevier) Hopefully we will be able to expand the donation when we next talk to them; I can ask about this particular source. How many editor's do you expect would use this for citations? Who would it be useful for? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
ProQuest Congressional
It has every Congressional hearing and every floor vote and floor speech in Congress, every CRS report, every GAO report, going back to 1790. Since many floor speeches and congressional hearings contain secondary sources placed in the record in their entirety, this is not only a great primary source but also a good source for secondary material. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Figureofnine: We have yet to find a profitable conversation with ProQuest. When we do, I will make sure to request access to this particular database. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- That would be outstanding if you can do hat. Thanks so much. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Astinson (WMF): I was just discussing with somebody how useful this resource would be, We believe it has access to The Times of India archives which could prove extremely useful for older films on wikipedia. If you could try to contact them I'd be immensely grateful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think you may be thinking of ProQuest Historical Newspapers. However ProQuest Congressional stands on its own merits. Sure hope we can get it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Veterinary sources
I don't have immediate access to university journal searching resources, so I'm not even sure where to start and what to recommend with this request. It just seems to me that the amount of veterinary material (peer-reviewed) available through JSTOR, and various other searches I have access to is quite low. Most of our articles on livestock and pet breeds of domestic animals are based largely on tertiary sources ("breed encyclopedias" and fancier magazines) most of which are not actually reliable sources for anything about veterinary medicine, being neither comprehensive nor current with regard to such science. Even just trying to adequately source and cover the pertinent details in Manx cat (with regard to what causes the taillessness of this breed, how it relates to taillessness in other breeds and other species, and what medical conditions are associated with it, in actual fact, not just in breeder supposition) has proven quite difficult. In looking over livestock articles (cattle, goats, etc.) I see a general lack of any breed-specific veterinary information. (On the up side, a few of the dog articles are better in this regard, as the medical conditions some popular breeds are unusually susceptible to has been the subject a lot more coverage in secondary source material.) There's also a wealth of genetic-study material that has come out in the last decade, but finding any of it is quite challenging. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: From the collections that we have right now, I would recommend WP:RSUK, WP:Elsevier ScienceDirect, WP:AAAS, WP:De Gruyter and WP:TANDF. JSTOR and MUSE are primarily humanities and social sciences. Some of the medical sources we have will have some veterinary material as well (though not much I am imagining). I would also, suggest using some libguides from various other research libraries. Both West Virginia's and the NIH's are promising starting points, thought much of what they are pointing to search tools and indexes. These are very useful starting points, and with our Resource Exchange, you should be able to get access to most things with the help of people who have research access. In particular, this source seems promising, and has the ability to sign up for free if you participate professionally in (which you do as a public knowledge contributor, though they don't have a field for that (I would select librarian, since Wikipedia is the public knowledge library)). We are going to ALA's annual conference this week, and I will keep an eye out for explicitly veterinary publishing. Let us know if you consistently run into a particular paywalled database over and over again (alot of people in the Sciences run into Elsevier's ScienceDirect, so we hope to get more copies of that). Cheers, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks much; I'm sure that will help. It's not so much that I keep running into a paywall, it's that I can't find any relevant information most of the time, because the databases and searches, not just the content, aren't readily available via the paths I've been e-trodding so far. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Extensive news archive; I had free access to this for a few years through my county library, but low take-up by the hicks and hayseeds in my county led to the library services manager not renewing the partnership :( I found this incredibly useful for my WP editing, and their pre-London Guardian archive was a treasure. Maybe they would consider a small trial? Keri (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Keri:: We are working on access to Proquest databases, but have yet to find a good person to talk too for a donation. Hopefully we find someone this week during the ALA conference. In the meantime, a lot of editors have been happy with WP:Newspapers.com and WP:BNA for historical materials. We are also in the process of negotiating several other newspaper databases, which I will try to ping you about when they become available (one of them will be in our next distribution in late July/ early August). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. I use both those archives, and find them very useful! The ProQuest NewsStand archive that was available through my library was particularly useful for its content from the 1990s and early 21st C though. Would be great if you managed to get something. I'll watch developments eagerly. Keri (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- ProQuest Historical, as I think it is called, would be helpful by archiving newspapers not on the Internet. ProQuest Congressional, as noted above, would also be invaluable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Lots of publications especially about humanities and theology/religion studies, but also about philosophy and history; most ebooks and journals are in German but there are also several publications in English. Continua Evoluzione (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)