Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Physics Journal May Reconsider Wikipedia Ban

Posted by kdawson on from the mine-mine-mine dept.

I don't believe in imaginary property writes "The flagship physics journal Physical Review Letters doesn't allow authors to submit material to Wikipedia, or blogs, that is derived from their published work. Recently, the journal withdrew their acceptance of two articles by Jonathan Oppenheim and co-authors because the authors had asked for a rights agreement compatible with Wikipedia and the Quantum Wikipedia. Currently, many scientists 'routinely do things which violate the transfer of copyright agreement of the journal.' Thirty-eight physicists have written to the journal requesting changes in their copyright policies, saying 'It is unreasonable and completely at odds with the practice in the field. Scientists want as broad an audience for their papers as possible.' The protest may be having an effect. The editor-in-chief of the APS journals says the society plans to review its copyright policy at a meeting in May. 'A group of excellent scientists has asked us to consider revising our copyright, and we take them seriously,' he says."

7 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Rather obvious solution by rueger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Claim that your physics thesis uncovers corruption in the Bush administration and pass it on to Wikileaks!

    --
    Three Squirrels
  2. Quantum Wikipedia by bluephone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quantum Wikipedia is of immeasurable quality.

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    1. Re:Quantum Wikipedia by kclittle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, actually, you can measure its quality to any arbitrary accuracy, but you then cannot measure its quantity to any accuracy whatsoever. The converse holds as well.

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    2. Re:Quantum Wikipedia by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      So: the article could either be correct or incorrect, until someone reads it?

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  3. Re:Maybe I'm in the wrong field by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, that is only funny if you do it to the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences.

    --
    Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
  4. Re:Or Better Yet by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Funny

    not a physicist, but nearly as clever:
    Stanford algorithms expert, Donald Knuth(pdf) doesn't like nasty closed-up journals either. As he said when I asked him about it; "Who are you? How did you get in my house?".

    --
    FGD 135
  5. Re:Rewriting by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least in linguistics, there's a few scholars who just keep submitting the same research to journal after journal and collection after collection, just rewriting the article each time.

    But at least it creates a secondary market for linguisticians to study the various versions and write papers that provide insight into the rewriting process...