Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/MIT

Few goals are more important than getting Wikipedians access to reliable sources that will help them write densely researched, informative articles. The dream of the Wikipedia Library is to create a single point of access for our best and most dedicated members to have access to any and all of the highest quality research resources in the world. We need to reward our community leaders and content contributors, and one way to do that is to simply get full entry to the best databases available at absolutely no cost to them.

Wikipedia editors contribute vast amounts of time and knowledge to the public. They rely on high-quality sources for their research; however, many of the best sources are trapped behind paywalls and many of our best editors are not affiliated with universities or similar institutions. Thus the problem. The solution, ultimately, is open access. A medium-term goal, however, is making sure that Wikipedia editors have full and free access to the sources that remain closed access. Our community has been advancing towards that goal through a research hub called The Wikipedia Library.

Retention of our most active editors is a serious concern, and providing them with access to proprietary research databases is one way to keep them active and effective. The public relies on Wikipedia as a starting point for research, and Wikipedia can only be as strong as the sources it is based on. We want to create a central gateway for partnerships with university libraries and publishers through which the most active and experienced Wikipedia editors can access the best available scholarship to improve Wikipedia for the public.

How MIT can help
Would MIT be interested in taking the lead on such a partnership with Wikipedia, in honor of Aaron Swartz and his life? Aaron was a Wikipedian, very much so. I remember stumbling upon Aaron's blog years ago, not knowing who had written the incisive prose. I also remember reading about a study of Wikipedia's anonymous editors and their largely positive contributions to the encyclopedia; it shaped my thinking about the openness of our community--and again, I didn't know who had written it. Of course, in both cases it was Aaron. I mourned his loss with the rest of the Wikipedia community who thought of him as an archetype of what we aspired to be or become. Aaron's passion was to free information for the public. Wikipedia's role as a leader in sharing free knowledge pairs perfectly with that inspiring mission.

The Report to the President: MIT and the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz

 * Excerpting from: http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pdf


 * Should MIT strengthen its activities in support of open access to scholarly publications?
 * "Aaron Swartz's downloading of the JSTOR database may have been motivated by the ideal of open access to scholarly works. Many commentators on the Swartz case have criticized MIT for not taking this into account in responding to his prosecution, given that MIT is itself a leader in advocating for open access. Should MIT be doing even more in support of open access to scholarly publications? At present, the MIT Open Access Working Group[6] is considering possible proactive initiatives in light of recent pushbacks, by some publishers, against open-access policies. These include publicly advocating pro–open access positions with professional societies, increasing MIT's support for open-access journals, and strengthening MIT's commitment to the Faculty Open Access Policy.
 * "Another role MIT might play is to lend its institutional support to the FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research) Act currently before Congress, and to similar legislation. MIT could play a special role in demonstrating the value of FASTR's call for computational analysis, by state-of-the-art technologies, of the results of government-funded research.[7] Such an initiative would align well with some of the "Big Data" activities now springing up on campus.  MIT might also assume a leadership role among research universities in responding to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy directive of February 22, 2013, directing major federal agencies that sponsor research to develop plans to make the published results of government-funded research freely available to the public.[8]  Given our expertise in scholarly publishing, repository development, and digital preservation, MIT could offer, perhaps in conjunction with others, to assist agencies in creating such plans. Going beyond this, MIT could seek to mobilize the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) around an initiative (such as SHARE[9]) whereby providing public access to the results of university scholarly research becomes the responsibility of the university research community itself—thereby strengthening the partnership between those who create knowledge and the public that benefits from it. And MIT could use its prestige and influence to actively advocate for strengthening copyright law's exceptions and limitations in support of scholarly pursuits, including fair use for the purposes of teaching, scholarship, and research.[10]"


 * 6. New Open Access Working Group Formed, MIT Faculty Newsletter, March/April 2012, .
 * 7. "FASTR Aims to Speed Open Access to Government-Funded Research," Library Journal, February 21, 2013, . See also Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act of 2013, .
 * 8.John Holdren, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies, February 22, 2013, .
 * 9. SHared Access Research Ecosystem (SHARE) Proposal, Assoc. of Research Libraries, .
 * 10. 17 USC 107


 * How can MIT draw lessons for its hacker culture from this experience?
 * "MIT celebrates hacker culture. Our admissions tours and first-year orientation salute a culture of creative disobedience where students are encouraged to explore secret corners of the campus, commit good-spirited acts of vandalism within informal but broadly—although not fully—understood rules, and resist restrictions that seem arbitrary or capricious. We attract students who are driven not just to be creative, but also to explore in ways that test boundaries and challenge positions of power."
 * "More than once in our interviews, the Review Panel heard members of the MIT community express a feeling that there has been a change in the institutional climate over recent years, where decisions have become driven more by a concern for minimizing risk than by strong affirmation of MIT values. Several people interpreted the Institute'sresponse in the Swartz case in that light. And some critics have chided MIT for playing such a passive role when Swartz's actions were motivated by principles that MIT itself champions."
 * "One distinguished alumnus said to us, 'MIT seemed to be operating according to the letter of the law, but not according to the letter of the heart,' even while he expressed his enormous respect for the MIT leaders who had to grapple with these decisions. Is his concern on target? MIT aspires to be passionate about its principles, but we must also behave prudently as an institution. Of all the decisions MIT's leadership must make, those that require negotiating a balance between prudence and passion are some of the most wrenching."
 * Conclusion
 * "A friend of Aaron Swartz stressed in one of our interviews that MIT will continue to be at the cutting edge in information technology and, in today's world, challenges like those presented in Aaron Swartz's case will arise again and again. With that realization, 'Neutrality on these cases is an incoherent stance. It's not the right choice for a tough leader or a moral leader.'"
 * "In closing, our review can suggest this lesson: MIT is respected for world-class work in information technology, for promoting open access to online information, and for dealing wisely with the risks of computer abuse. The world looksto MIT to be at the forefront of these areas. Looking back on the Aaron Swartz case, the world didn't see leadership. As one person involved in the decisions put it: 'MIT didn't do anything wrong; but we didn't do ourselves proud."
 * "It has not been the Panel's charge for this review to make judgments, rather only to learn and help others learn. In doing so, let us all recognize that, by responding as we did, MIT missed an opportunity to demonstrate the leadership that we pride ourselves on. Not meeting, accepting, and embracing the responsibility of leadership can bring disappointment. In the world at large, disappointment can easily progress to disillusionment and even outrage, as the Aaron Swartz tragedy has demonstrated with terrible clarity."

Principles

 * Access to high-quality published sources enhances the encyclopedia's mission, improves our reliability, and enhances the efficiency of vital research.
 * A variety of free sources are available in local libraries, university libraries and through Google (search, news, archives, books, scholar).
 * Free and universally accessible sources are always preferable to use on Wikipedia.
 * Many sources are not free or not accessible, requiring one to be in physical proximity to a building or have a subscription to view content.
 * Proprietary resource providers offer paid access to a variety of sources that Wikipedians would find useful in their regular content work.
 * These providers are not inexpensive and would be unaffordable to a majority of volunteer editors who work on the encyclopedia.
 * A collaboration between a university library and Wikipedia would be mutually beneficial.

What's in it for Wikipedia?

 * Access to thousands of publications, some of which are not indexed by Google or only provide an abstract without paying a subscription fee
 * Enhanced community relations with a providers of education resources
 * Another tool in the community's and editors' kit for improving articles

What's in it for MIT

 * Opportunity to improve the content on the largest encyclopedia in the world
 * Visibility within the community as having helped out with an essential aspect of site operations
 * In line with policies, promotion of this collaboration
 * Direct links within references back to proprietary web pages
 * Greater awareness among readers who follow links that those resource providers exist and provides a useful service
 * First come first served placement on the Wikipedia Library sign-on page
 * Lasting memorial to Aaron Swartz and his life

What it's not

 * A formal partnership or contractual relationship
 * A formal endorsement of one university over other similar and competing research services
 * An agreement to advertise one university services beyond what is normally done for the use of any source
 * An agreement to use one university's sources where free versions of the same publications are available elsewhere

Potential for growth
The impact of The Wikipedia Library initially would servesonly the 1000 or so editors who would have free access to the library. However, 1000 dedicated Wikipedians might make hundreds of thousands of edits. Improving articles with high quality sources is a foundational exercise and could vastly improve articles that are read by millions of people a year. There is also the opportunity to bridge a gap between Wikipedia and the for-profit research community. Simply, those organizations can be a tremendous ally in fulfilling our core mission. They are great allies to know and have as friends and partners.

The goal of The Wikipedia Library is to build lasting relationships with major research institutions, publishers, and libraries. As Wikipedia's influence grows over time, these relationships will continue to power our inspiring mission to "give every single person on the planet free access to the sum of all human knowledge."