Wikipedia talk:Project MUSE

New York Public Library access
I just wanted to point out to all New York City residents that Project MUSE is available to anyone, from home, with an NYPL library card. I had heard about this a while back and just found out for sure, so I've withdrawn my application. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

New reference tool
There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Update (round 1)
Everyone listed at Project_MUSE/Approved should now have received their login information by email. Please let me know if you did not receive it (check your spam folder). Everyone who, as of this timestamp, is listed on Project_MUSE as being approved, you are on a list sent to MUSE this morning and you will receive your logins once MUSE has generated them. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a fantastic resource - I have already found a wealth of new sources within my topics of interest. Many thanks for all your work with this. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

All approved editors should now have received logins by email. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Is a month normal or is there a hiccup?
Just as a FYI, it's now been a month since I filled out the google form (7 September) and I've had no further email about it. Dropping a note here in case this is not just the expected delay (cf. "Expect this process to take as long as two weeks […]"). --Xover (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of weeks for me, but no response so far. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Your information has been passed onto Project Muse. A month turnaround is about typical. NegMawon (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perhaps the relevant text should be updated to reflect this ("a month" vs. "up to two weeks"), just to let applicants know when it's time to start getting antsy and when they should just lean back and wait? --Xover (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idea to me. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We are working on solving this problem: our average sign-up to access time frame is 27 days. We are about to hire a developer for a simple online app that allows us to better track these applications, process them quicker, and get them to partners within a shorter window of time. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, perhaps, we could just update the infobox-thingy with the revised estimate to set applicants' expectations properly. I feel fairly safe in betting that that will be cheaper… :-) --Xover (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated. Let me know if there is anything else we can make more transparent about the access process. In the long run, User:Nikkimaria and I spend a considerable amount of paid time monitoring a wide variety of pages, spreadsheets and volunteer activities to ensure quality, because of the very manual nature of this work. Comparatively, a small amount of developer contracting money is a much cheaper proposition, and allows us to focus on other kinds of effective scaling of our donor dollar impact. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And for the record I was just being facetious: the point being that managing applicant expectations in this way is essentially free and will head off their frustration and lessen the number of these kinds of requests you will have to deal with, while waiting for the more efficient system to be ready. Even when your end is as efficient as it can be, actively managing applicant expectations will still be a good idea to account for delays on the donor end. I'm sure we would all prefer if your and Nikkimaria's time could be spent on something more productive (and engaging) than manually managing what software would do both better and faster. Your efforts are, very much, appreciated! --Xover (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just posting to say I have access problem (userID and given pass not working). Who should I get in touch with? --Helichrysum Italicum (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you still having issues? If so I'm sure the account coordinator NegMawon can look into it for you. Sam Walton (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for your concern, I have already solved the issue with NegMawon via email! --Helichrysum Italicum (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone with MUSE access
Could someone please look up the following article "The Republican Court and the Historiography of a Women’s Domain in the Public Sphere" by David S. Shields and Fredrika J. Teute in Journal of the Early Republic, Volume 35, Number 2, Summer 2015, pp. 169-183 (MUSE URL)? I need to check content & wording about Martha Washington re this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Send me an email. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The cited source does not support the information inserted in that edit. It does not touch on Mrs. Washington's opposition, or lack thereof, to Washington's presidency; her desire, or lack of, for a "quiet life"; her opinions on her husband's duties to his country, or the relative priority of this duty to other concerns; nor her thoughts on "her job" as regards assistance to Washington or other late eighteenth century American leaders. One can perhaps infer something about her views on the latter by the activities described in the cited article, but that would be novel synthesis or original research. Supporting the text in the relevant edit with this source is also rather odd as the article takes an overtly feminist perspective and the inserted text reflects a rather patriarchal perspective (or, put another way, I suspect Shields and Teute would object to being cited for that particular purpose). In other words, the edit should either be reverted or moved and cited to a source that actually supports it. My recommendation would be to simply remove it.
 * Note, however, that the cited source does not support the first sentence of that section either (the opposition to Washington's presidency), and there is some question as to whether its interpretation of the cited source is accurate as regards "backstage political role" (the article asserts the opposite: these women's role was public, not private, and supported the official power structures, unlike the explicitly private power exerted by women, usually through their influence on men). Thus, the whole section would benefit from a rewrite by someone with a decent grasp of this area (which is not me, sorry). This also seems like a likely area for feminist perspective historiography that could fruitfully be covered in the article. --Xover (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Lovin' it
I've only had the access for 2 days. But already I'm finding it a goldmine of sourcing in its way. It's so easy to use. Thanks to Wikipedia for providing this for us. — Maile (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Great to hear! :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Authentication Attempt Failed
Everything has worked fine since I got the account in October. This morning I got the message "Authentication Attempt Failed", and it won't let me log in. This is not browser-specific. I've tried it on Firefox and IE, with identical results. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have emailed you about this. I input an error ticket with Muse technical support but never got a reply.  Others I know who have MUSE don't seem to have this problem.  If I go to the link you provided when this was initially set up, the site gives me the message "Document Not Found  The page you are looking for was not found."  If I click on the login button at the top of the page, it redirects to authentication.  The authentication has always worked for me, and now it doesn't. Can you please help me sort this out? — Maile  (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I discovered that I am having the same problem as Maile66 today. The problem occurs both on my laptop (Arch Linux/Firefox) and phone (Android Ice-Cream Sandwich/Chrome).  I can't remember precisely when the last time I was able to successfully log in was, but it was relatively recent: possibly even within the last week. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Have just remembered that I used MUSE to access Gagarin's Speeches in Athenian Law which I mention here. So MUSE was still working for me on Nov 30.  Also I notice that  and  alse appear to have noticed that they have lost access at the beginning of this month.  I wonder whether all of these are related... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've sent an email to our contact at MUSE and will let you know what I find out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting this. I thought I was the only one. I had access to MUSE a couple of days ago, so this is something that appears to have its onset on or about December 1. — Maile  (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Caeciliusinhorto: My account was last renewed 22 November 2015. I assumed my access simply ran out after a year. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am having the same problem as well. Please let me know if anything changes. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind it is back in working order for me.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's working for me, also, all of a sudden. But I don't think it's a secure site.  When I open MUSE, in the upper left, I see the search results of someone else.  It then lets me "authenticate" riding piggy back on somebody else's search.  I can now "authenticate" myself under my own name, but the login page is still missing.  I don't see anywhere I can charge my password.  As much as I appreciate the access - I seriously, SERIOUSLY love MUSE - there's been such chatter on Wikipedia of late about hacked passwords on other sites leading to hacking at Wikipedia.  Thanks for the access, but I sure would love to be able to change my password there. — Maile  (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be working again for me also. I would be very interested to know what the problem was. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * we need to somehow convey to MUSE that something is still wrong in their sign-in procedure. I still doubt whether it is a secure site.  This is how it's been for me today: If I try to sign in by just pulling up MUSE, it's hit and miss whether or not it fails.  And fail it still does.  Sometimes I click on MUSE, and it takes me (still) to somebody else's search results. Not always, but about half the time.  If I open up a link I already have in an article, that's my best bet of signing in.  But no way, no how, should I land on another user's search result without even trying to log in.  Something is amiss in their system. — Maile  (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reported the continued issues to our contact at MUSE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just for tracking on how strange this is:  Yesterday it kept me logged in as long as my computer was on.  But at one point I clicked on MUSE, it showed me logged in as myself, and was open to a book I had never looked at.  This morning, I tried twice logging in, and it said "Authentication Attempt Failed".  Seconds later, I opened a book from its link on a Wikipedia page, and it showed me logged in as myself when the book opened.  Shouldn't be happening this way. — Maile  (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I too am back to getting "Authentication attempt failed". Hope MUSE sort this out soon...  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, me also. Just now when I tried it.  MUSE had been working perfectly for days, no flaws at all.  And now we're back to whatever is happening. — Maile  (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mine is working this morning. Stay tuned ... — Maile  (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

My MUSE access appears to be on the blink again. is it working for you? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's working for me ... at the moment. MUSE can be kind of quirky in that respect.  Mostly, it works for me.  Then it hiccups and won't let me sign in, but if I immediately try again it lets me.  — Maile  (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So it turns out that if I try to sign in enough times, it will eventually let me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)