Talk:Budapest Open Access Initiative

Number of signatories
"13 original signatories of the Budapest Open Access Initiative included " is followed by a list of 16 names. Either the number is wrong or the list is wrong." JGDove99 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) I've confirmed with Melissa Hagemann that there were 17 attendees of whom 16 (those listed) were all signatories. JGDove99 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Budapest Open Access Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628103036/http://www.openarchives.eu/ to http://www.openarchives.eu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources for redlinked items
Basic facts about some of the redlinked items in this article can be found in Wikidata: Melissa Hagemann, István Rév, Monika Segbert, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter. -- Oa01 (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted page redirect to Open Society Foundation
I reverted the page redirect to the Open Society Foundation. While this edit was likely made in good faith, there was no discussion or consensus to warrant the change. The BOAI article needs work but it is notable and warrants its own page. Megs (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Megs, you can prove that with secondary sources. The article doesn't have any at all. I would have appreciated an explanation in the edit summary. In the meantime, we have something rather promotional lacking verification; that this was supposed to be "one of the major defining events in the open access movement" is sourced to the FAQ on the website of one of the organization's signatories. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I recognize and agree with the problem of using so many primary sources. I can work to address that when I have time this weekend. It was inappropriate to set a redirect without first initiating a discussion. The page was created 18 years ago without such a change. If you conduct a basic search for "Budapest Open Access Initiative" in Google Scholar, you will see it's mentioned in over 24,000 articles. The BOAI, along with the Berlin Declaration, are defining events in the open access movement. Please pause additional action until improvements can be made. Thank you! Megs (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I immediately went to add a reference to support the claim you cite above, but you already reverted. Time to pull in an admin. https://www.niso.org/niso-io/2022/03/budapest-open-access-initiative-hits-milestone Megs (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted you since you seem hell-bent in this content existing. I surmise that you are too close to the subject and should not be advocating for it in such partisan terms, per WP:GHITS. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not advocating for anything except that the article persist for a period of time so it may be improved. Your accusations are baseless. GHITS is widely different than a Google Scholar test, which is an index of peer-reviewed scholarly articles. It is more comprehensive than SCOPUS or Web of Science. I also went to add an independent source, but you reverted too quickly for me to do so. A friendly reminder to AGF. An article cannot be improved if it does not exist. Megs (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , you could have indicated any of these things in an edit summary: it's a very useful, even polite thing to do. I wouldn't have known you left a note here if I hadn't clicked on your contributions. GHITS and "check the Google Scholar hits"--what's the difference? It is not incumbent on editors to do the work for other editors. That the page is 18 years old means only that we should have looked harder for such poorly verified content, or that creators should have done a better job verifying information.As for your proposed addition, that link you added is from the website of NISO, the National Information Standards Organization, which is great--but again, it is not a secondary source or acceptable via WP:RS for the purpose of notability. If any of those 28,000 articles were peer-reviewed and published in academic journals, those would be the ones to include. Finally, "time to pull in an admin"--sure, go ahead. It's a somewhat tasteless threat. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Article needs serious improvement: ☑️ Redirect without comment not helping it improve: ☑️ Time spent arguing on talk could already have fixed the problem: ☑️☑️ Redirect did not merge into target article... which still links back to this one 😭  Please, if you're going to merge a long-standing article without discussion, take time to do it properly.  In this case, it's fairly common knowledge (i.e. mentioned in many sources on the top page of search results) that this kicked off the modern OA movement, so removing all detail about it from the encyclopedia is a weird flex.  More generally  is there some new policy on this front leading a wave of removals? there's a LOT of excellent, easily-sourceable material added back when sourcing standards were more lax which I'd say definitely should not be removed rather than improved: this page isn't the best place for that discussion but we should have it somewhere.   – SJ +  19:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin, but I am a subject expert with an interest in this topic who looked at the article, and I am shocked to see this was redirected with no discussion; that's counter to all of our principles of incremental improvement on Wikipedia. It is absolutely a notable stand-alone topic; the so-called promotional website you linked above is from one of the world's leading experts on open access. As for sources, here's a quick bibliography that I pulled, of peer reviewed articles (and a book) from library databases. I read the abstracts and skimmed the papers, and all discuss the Budapest OA initiative and its background, history and impact. (And while this did not take me long as a professional librarian, I expect that my backlog of things to work on is as long as yours on Wikipedia: the fact it "hasn't been done yet" isn't a baseline indicator of notability). I would appreciate you reverting the redirect so that we may add these sources and improve the article. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * phoebe, if you are correct on the content of those articles, you probably have enough material to write a decent article on that topic, and I will thank you for your effort if you do say. I can do nothing about the shock you received, except to say that reverting to a completely improperly verified version of an article based solely on primary documents is not improvement, incremental or otherwise. I think that threatening admin action over a content matter is not in keeping with our policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't threaten you; but you also didn't behave in keeping with the generally-understood process for working on improving content, which is to discuss it first. It sounds like you don't want to revert the redirect if I understand correctly. In order to improve said article, it needs to be un-redirected, since it is rather difficult to improve an article that isn't being displayed and I don't particularly want to write the whole thing from scratch. I also feel that if I revert the redirect, you will perhaps revert-war with me, and I'd rather not. You see the issue? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 17:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of generally-understood processes, and what I did is one of them. When you click "undo", your editing window opens up. It's not a lot of work to add one single reference before you click save. That's less work than dropping three dozen references on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourcery
Quick thought -- It would be nice to add a few classes of sources: – SJ + 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Early description of impact from mainstream media (beyond the BBC article already there, maybe from a few years out?)
 * Mainstream coverage of 10th or 20th anniversaries
 * Current notable OA institutions describing it in recent context (post-Plan S)

List of sources w/ DOIs + in library collections
(added by phoebe)
 * Appel, Andre Luiz, and Sarita Albagli. “OPEN ACCESS IN QUESTION: new agendas and challenges.” INFORMACAO & SOCIEDADE-ESTUDOS, vol. 29, no. 4, Dec. 2019, pp. 187–208.
 * Butler-Adam, J. “Dealing with ‘open Access’ Demons: Leader.” South African Journal of Science, vol. 110, no. 5, 2014, pp. 1-. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.1590/sajs.2014/a0070.
 * Chakravorty, Nishant, et al. “Open Science: Challenges, Possible Solutions and the Way Forward.” PROCEEDINGS OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMY, vol. 88, no. 3, Sept. 2022, pp. 456–71. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00104-2.
 * Dawrs, Stuart. “Virtually There: Open Access and the Online Growth of Pacific Dissertations and Theses.” The Contemporary Pacific, vol. 24, no. 2, 2012, pp. 348–57. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.1353/cp.2012.0038.
 * FITZPATRICK, Kathleen. “Giving It Away: Sharing and the Future of Scholarly Communication.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 43, no. 4, 2012, pp. 347–62. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.43.4.347.
 * GUEDON, Jean-Claude. “The Budapest Initiative for Open Access.” Information Services & Use, vol. 23, no. 2–3, 2003, pp. 171–73. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2003-232-328.
 * Holley, Robert P. “Open Access Goals Revisited: How Green and Gold Open Access Are Meeting (or Not) Their Original Goals.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 45, no. 4, 2014, pp. 321–35. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.45.4.01.
 * Hrachovec, Herbert. “Access for everybody? Rhetoric and reality of the Open Access Initiative.” INFORMATION-WISSENSCHAFT UND PRAXIS, vol. 69, no. 4, Aug. 2018, pp. 161–70. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2018-0022.
 * Jlis, Redazione It. “Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002).” JLIS.It : Italian Journal of Library and Information Science, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 1–5. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-8629.
 * “Ten Years on from the Budapest Open Access Initiative: Setting the Default to Open (BOAI10, 2012).” JLIS.It : Italian Journal of Library and Information Science, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012, pp. 1–15. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-8631.
 * McGrath, M. “Interlending and Document Supply: A Review of Recent Literature - XLIII.” INTERLENDING & DOCUMENT SUPPLY, vol. 30, no. 4, 2002, pp. 203–09. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610210452510.
 * Mendonça, Sandro, et al. “11.1 The Politics of Open Access.” World Wide Research, The MIT Press, 2010. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014397.003.0035.
 * Mohammad Reza Ghane. “Open Access Policy.” International Journal of Information Science and Management, 2016.
 * Moon, Jae Yun, et al. “Diffusion of Open Access: Why Are Some Disciplines More Successful than Others?” PACIFIC ASIA CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2007, SECTIONS 1-6, Natl Sun Yat-Sen Univ, 2007. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000269121600152.
 * Morrison, Heather. “Budapest, Bethesda, Berlin: The BBB Definition of Open Access.” SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION FOR LIBRARIANS, Chandos Publ, 2009, pp. 211–14. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000289467400011.
 * Morrison, Heather. Scholarly Communication for Librarians. Chandos, 2009.
 * Muellerleile, Chris. “Open Access Panacea: Scarcity, Abundance, and Enclosure in the New Economy of Academic Knowledge Production 1.” The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science, 1st ed., vol. 1, Routledge, 2017, pp. 132–43. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315685397-12.
 * OKABE, Yukinori, et al. “Philosophical background of Budapest Open Access Initiative and its acceptance.” Joho Chishiki Gakkaishi, vol. 21, no. 3, 2011, pp. 333–49. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.2964/jsik.21-032.
 * Redazione JLISit. “Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002).” JLIS.It : Italian Journal of Library and Information Science, vol. 3, no. 2, 2012.
 * Rizor, Sara L., and Robert P. Holley. “Open Access Goals Revisited: How Green and Gold Open Access Are Meeting (or Not) Their Original Goals.” JOURNAL OF SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, vol. 45, no. 4, July 2014, pp. 321–35. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.45.4.01.
 * Schopfel, Joachim, et al. “The Transformation of the Green Road to Open Access.” PUBLICATIONS, vol. 11, no. 2, June 2023, p. 29. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020029.
 * Singh, Nishith K. “The Self-Archiving Principle: A Momentous Trek.” Postgraduate Medical Journal, vol. 83, no. 983, 2007, pp. 564–67. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2006.056887.
 * Togia, Aspasia, and Stella Korobili. “Attitudes towards Open Access: A Meta-Synthesis of the Empirical Literature.” LET’S PUT DATA TO USE: DIGITAL SCHOLARSHIP FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, edited by P. Polydoratou and M. Dobreva, Ios Press, 2014, pp. 13–22. Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-409-1-13.
 * Willis, Jerry, et al. “Scholarly Knowledge Development and Dissemination in an International Context: Approaches and Tools for Higher Education.” Computers in the Schools, vol. 27, no. 3–4, 2010, pp. 155–99. mit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com, https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2010.523883.