Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/In focus


 * This is a very worthwhile initiative. I recall various WMF efforts to shoehorn traditional knowledge from the Global South that has never been written down in reliable sources (e.g. oral citations) in a way that violates WP:NOR. WikiJournals is the proper way to do it - documentation of these cultures needs to be peer reviewed because it is original research. MER-C 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:MER-C lot of potential here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you guys are referring to the Oral citations experiment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Such knowledge could be passed on to Wikipedia once WikiJournals gain status as Reliable Sources ... once they've established their reliability and someone manages to get a policy change through the grinding wheels. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not an "extreme rarity" to have open access journals without author fees (sometimes called diamond open access). DOAJ alone lists 9847 such journals as of now, so they're clearly the vast majority. When approaching the open science community, I hope that we show more regard for what's out there already. Nemo 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point - There are many APC-free OA journals (see also). Also, APC journals sometimes offer waivers. However I think it is still fair to say that fee-free OA is rare overall. Most publications are still in subscription journals (Gold OA <15%). For OA articles, the majority are still published in journals that use APCs (gold or hybrid) . On the other hand, from what I've seen, humanities journals seem more likely to be APC-free . I'll aim to be more clear in future. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 01:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure I understood your point, but if you're saying that APC-free articles are a minority of gold OA articles, or that the average APC among gold OA is high, or that the average cost per OA article is high, any such claim is very hard to prove if not entirely disproven by rather well known statistics. You can find a summary of the most important figures at Ten myths around open scholarly publishing. You can find some additional estimates at GOA4. Nemo 23:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my biomed background skews my perception, since it has the lowest proportion of fee-free (30%, GOA4 table 4.4), but even that is way higher than I expected! Looking at the raw data from DOAJ it seems that the split is larger international journals (PLOS, BMC, etc) versus smaller region journals. Definitely changed my understanding of the balance though. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment No mention here of it, but WikiLaw (3) is also being proposed! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)