Talk:Requests for comment/Ask the US government to require open access to federally sponsored research

Discussion[edit]

(Moved from rfc page, as this is a meta-discussion about the rfc, not the rfc topic itself. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: I'm a bit confused, what is being asked here? That is, if this request is "successful" what will the action be? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are asking people to send email in response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy solicitation, the first of its kind to defeat some publishers' monopoly on peer-reviewed research in high-impact journals since the initial Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility call to action on the issue which if I remember correctly occurred around 1985. The successful outcome will entail open access to all research supported in whole or in part by US government funds. EllenCT (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I posted this on the English Wikipedia and Commons, as it was sent out off wiki on one of the mailing lists. Looks like it was copied over. No big deal I guess. A Meta RfC might, as you say, be a bit confusing, since these are normally internal affairs. I'm not sure what would be the better venue though. GMG ^talk 23:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What we have now is a situation where, for example, an Italian country doctor might get free and unfettered access to information about, say, antiviral effectiveness, when they would otherwise have to pay $65 or some such. Which scenario is best for the American people? EllenCT (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK so this isn't a request for comment, you aren't trying to gather a consensus to make a decision? RfC's are not for political action advertisements or to determine what is "best for the American people". — xaosflux ^Talk 23:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this from the meta-wiki main page - at the least needs more discussion first. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meta:Babel may be a good venue to discuss, or at least link to here (or somewhere the discussion can take place) from there. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I am deeply disappointed and saddened by your response, and have asked for the founder's opinion. EllenCT (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: sorry you are saddened. Jimbo hasn't posted here in about 4 years, but it would be nice to hear from him! While I'm an admin, I'm certainly not the decider of all things on the Meta-Wiki! I suggest you follow up at the link I left you above to see if there is support to run this very unusual RfC on our main page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: thank you for your understanding. Given the effort I extended in compiling those translations, and the impending deadline, would you mind if I reverted your deletion pending discussion? EllenCT (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EllenCT: Yes, I would. I don't think this is appropriate main page material so the general Bold, revert, discuss strategy is appropriate. Having a developed consensus to do it would easily overcome my objection. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: to be clear, you object to my edits here because you do not believe that the movement is substantially invested in such action. Is that correct? EllenCT

(talk) 23:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) at the very least this is a very unusual @EllenCT: Requests for comment. It does not appear to be an attempt to gain the broad input of contributors to make a decision about anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: are you claiming that I am not trying to obtain the broadest possible section of the community movement in response to this Request for Information? EllenCT (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that your request for people to go email some third party regarding what you say is about what is "best for the American people" is outside of the Meta:Inclusion_policy, specifically in that it is "Information about non-Wikimedia wikis." — xaosflux ^Talk 00:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: that is absurd. Are you with the movement for free culture, or against it? "Some third party" is the several trillion dollar-backed (USA government) entity controlling what you get to read. EllenCT (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not going to try to address your logical facilities there. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your implication that I have been fallacious in any manner whatsoever, Xaosflux. EllenCT (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I think that last part of your argument is an association fallacy, whether or not I am part of the "movement for free culture" has no bearing on my opinion if this unusual rfc is aligned with our inclusion policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: What evidence do you purport supports your opinion that I have made an association fallacy? EllenCT (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An association fallacy is when an argument makes a generalization that the attributes of one thing must be connected to another thing, when they are not actually - as I explained above. Additionally it is completely off topic to determine if a contributor is part of the "movement for free culture" when determining if the subject matter is within the inclusion policy. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this RfC itself, I think it has two major problems:

This is not following the Requests for comment format for global RfC's. It does not appear to be an attempt to seek broader input that can use that input to make a decision about anything.
This does not appear to meet the Meta:Inclusion policy, specifically the requirements for:
"Some content is not appropriate on Meta:" ... "Information about non-Wikimedia wikis."

While we generally have a bit of flexibility for related topics, using our main page to advertise a call for political action seems extreme.

As I noted above, I certainly could have a minority opinion here and would respect a consensus of support if one develops. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo Xaosflux's statements here. This is definitely not something that should be on Meta. Nihlus 14:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am disappointed in the heavy handed use of deletion to stifle discussion. public policy discussion that impacts wikimedia work is in scope. see also The Wikipedia Library. you might want to step back, not a good look Slowking4 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]