Talk:The Wikipedia Library/Archive 2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Nomos eLibrary[edit]

Dear @Samwalton9 (WMF):, I've just noticed that the Nomos eLibrary has significantly reduced access through the Wikipedia Library. I cannot access titles which I had accessed without problems just a few months ago. Most titles are now marked „Kein Zugriff“ [No Access]. Is that a bug or has the deal with Nomos changed? Happy new year, Polibil (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polibil: It's likely that our access expired on Nomos' end - I'll send them an email asking to extend that and will let you know when I hear back. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thank you! Polibil (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggested partner sites[edit]

On the Suggest partners page, there are some suggested partners that are listed multiple times (Hathi Trust, for example), and each listing has multiple upvotes. Is there a way to merge duplicate entries so each suggested site is listed only once? This would make the upvote counts more accurate. It might even be good to put in a check of the new suggestions that makes sure the URL hasn't already been suggested, and suggest upvoting the existing suggestion rather than adding it again. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question last year and merging was reported as being technically impossible. HHill (talk) 08:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: It's a good suggestion! I've filed T298947. I will say, though, that when we make our lists of priorities we do aggregate duplicate suggestions to get a more accurate vote total, so this isn't the end of the world in terms of our prioritization. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF): I'm glad to know you do that. It would make it easier for us plebes, though, if there weren't two or three or four entries for the same site. Thanks for creating the phab ticket. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh University Press[edit]

Is anyone else having difficulty accessing any content through this source? Brigade Piron (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Just confirming that it looks like our access to Edinburgh University Press might have expired - I've contacted them to see if we can get that reinstated. I'll let you know when I've heard back. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF):, thanks for looking into this. Please do let me know if it is reinstated! Brigade Piron (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Edinburgh have confirmed that our access should still be active. Could you provide some further details on the issues you're having accessing content? They did mention that "there was recently a problem with loading PDF files, where the file would not complete loading (on some systems there would have been a coffee cup icon that was supposed to ‘fill’ but this would not happen)". Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF):, I'm grateful for your trouble with this. At time of writing, I cannot access the site at all - I get a "site cannot be reached" error when clicking through our link (http://www.euppublishing.com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/journals). Brigade Piron (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Ah, OK, are you using Chrome? Is there some kind of error code below the 'Can't be reached' message? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF):, yes I am using Chrome. Is that an issue? I don't think there is any error code - it's an issue with the page simply failing to load. Brigade Piron (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: No that shouldn't be a problem. Are you using any extensions, or have you perhaps turned on additional security settings such as blocking cookies? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious[edit]

I am pleasantly surprised, but how did you pick me tonight after 15 years? What are the criteria? Thanks. Fowler&fowler (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, the criteria for The Wikipedia Library are at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/about/ . TSventon (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looking forward. Fowler&fowler (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to USE this?[edit]

I have just spent a couple of hours playing with the Wikipedia Library, and I am trying to figure out how I can use it in Wikipedia. I am having three main problems (so far):

  1. How to log back on? I got a pop-up message inviting me to apply, and it had a link to "log on using Wikipedia". That worked fine. But now that I have logged off there, I can't find any way to get back on. I tried going back to the same URLs, but they go to a logon screen that asks for my User ID and Password. I tried using my Wikipedia ones, but they failed.
  2. The advanced search facility is great, and finds hits from all over. But when I open a hit, I get some information about it (title, author, date, publisher, etc.) but that alone is not helpful - I would also need to be able to read the content of the article. Is there some magic trick to being able to go from what is essentially a catalogue entry to the actual contents?
  3. How to cite it on Wikipedia? I can't use the ebscohost URL (in fact it gives an error message if I even try). So do I have to just go without an online link? Even then, the ebscohost tool often seems to be summarizing several news sources, which means that things like the title don't relate to any individual news source. Some of the promising-looking hits I found listed at least half a dozen newspapers that covered the story, with date and page numbers. But without being able to read those articles I can't say which covers what details, and I don't have enough details there to cite any individual source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gronk Oz:
1) You can navigate back to the library at the following URL: https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/. The only login screen you should be presented with is one on Meta if you're not already logged in there.
2) Search results should have a "PDF Full Text", "View Full Text", "Full Text Finder" or similar link which takes you to the full text of that item. Sometimes search results are only the bibliographic data for that item. In this case we don't actually have access to the full text, unfortunately, but these should be in the minority. If you have any specific examples of searches and results you can't figure out how to access I'd be happy to take a look.
3) Unfortunately getting the correct URL to cite can be challenging through the search results. The last time I spoke to EBSCO they said they were working on UI improvements which would present a clearer stable URL for citations. Sometimes the first pages of PDFs you're reading will have some citation guidance, such as a stable URL or a DOI link you can use. Regardless, it's not against Wikipedia or TWL policy for you to add a citation without including a URL. Hope that helps! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thanks for such a prompt reply. I will bookmark that link. After I submitted the question, I found some other articles which did have the Full Text link, so I know what to look for there, now. And yes, I can use references without an online link. So this looks it will be a very helpful tool.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THX!) Helpful -Всевидяче Око (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I tried searching for the first time, looking for "Dermot Chenevix Trench and Haines of "Ulysses"". Found it all right, clicked through, and got the message "Your institution does not have access to this journal article on JSTOR". I feel like the dog in the cartoon looking doubtfully at St Peter at the Pearly Gates and saying "Eternal bliss is all very well, but is it just the usual business of no dogs on the sofa?" Pageturners (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pageturners: That's an unfortunate first experience, sorry you couldn't find what you were looking for! Managing the list of content we have access to through that search interface is a constant battle for us in matching up what we think we have versus what the partner organisations tell us. It's not 100% correct yet, and I wasn't aware of any issue for JSTOR, so thanks for highlighting that. I've now contacted them and we'll adjust the settings so JSTOR links only go to accessible content. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. So… not much accessible content, then? Probably what JSTOR already offers for free download? Pageturners (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's full JSTOR access, if you're logged in properly. DS (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

would like to stay logged in[edit]

I appreciate that the library card platform which is accessible here is on a different server than the rest of the library content. However, I have two requests

  1. I would like to stay logged in to this platform (I never do, I always have to click the login button every time I go there)
  2. That the logo in the upper left of this page link to the actual Wikipedia library where I sometimes want to go to put something on the talk page or check something else.

Thank you! Jessamyn (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessamyn: Thanks for the feedback!
1) That's odd, and seems like an issue with cookies on your end. It should be the case that you remain logged in to the library (even if you log out of Wikipedia), so I suspect you might have some kind of cookie blocking setting turned on which is preventing this.
2) When you say "the actual Wikipedia Library", where are you referring to? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thanks I'll look into the cookie thing. I mean I'd like to have a link back to this page which feels to me to be the center of TWL activities. Jessamyn (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessamyn: Ahh - we just discussed this the other week. The primary link we currently have back to Wikimedia projects is to this page, but we could also add locally relevant links to, for example, English Wikipedia. There's a Phab ticket for this at T299510. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: Thank you. I did not mean the specific "Discuss" link (which makes sense to me, maybe not to other folks) but the "What happens when you click the Wikipedia Library icon in the upper left" issue. When I am on this page clicking that icon takes me here (the wikipedia library collections page) when I would have expected it to take me here (main page of The Wikipedia Library in English). When I am on the main page when not logged in, that image in the upper left isn't clickable at all. So consistent behavior is the main thing and then determining the proper place for that link to go is the second. Jessamyn (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to collections at The Wikipedia Library[edit]

I just received a notice that I now have access to The Wikipedia Library. This will be helpful and I appreciate it. At the same time, I have already access to some of the collections. Should I somehow return/decline those collections so that other users can use them?
--DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaffodilOcean: No worries, that's fine, you don't need to do anything :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've received a similar message; and reacted with the same question as @DaffodilOcean. The reason for this is of course the admonition in the about page, namely, the following:
Any editor can use the library if they meet a few basic requirements:
...
*You do not already have access to the resources you’re applying for through another library or institution
Now, I indeed have access to a bunch of sources (mainly academic journals) through my university. @Samwalton9 (WMF): Does your answer to DaffodilOcean mean that I completely shall ignore the instruction about not having other access? (If so, perhaps that admonition line should be removed from the about page.) Or, does it only apply in some cases, e. g., when asking for special access to some resources which "require an application before access is granted", as also described in that page? (If so, perhaps the admonition should be clarified a bit.)
I really look forward to adding this tool for finding adequate background and reference material; but I do not want to abuse it, and therefore would like to understand precisely what the exception "not already have access" is about. Regards, JoergenB (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoergenB: I think you're right that this needs, at minimum, rewording. For limited-access collections which require an application this was more relevant, but now that more than half of the library's content is available no-questions-asked this is less important. I'll get this reworded, and in the meantime don't worry about this criteria except when you're applying for some additional collection - if you already have access to it somewhere else it would be best to leave a seat for other users. I've just filed T300486 Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both for the clarification here, and for the filing! JoergenB (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Wikipedia library[edit]

Recently, I get access of Wiki library. For how long I can access it? Can I apply for more than one collections in once? What is use of it and where can I use? Dineshswamiin (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dineshswamiin: As long as you're making at least 10 edits each month, and don't get any significant blocks, you can use it for as long as the program is running (hopefully a long time!). You can apply to more than one collection at once. You can use the library to do research, and then use the resources you find as citations when writing content. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A typo[edit]

In the register page, the Mandarin of "I agree to the above terms of use" is 我同意這些使用條款, not 我同這些使用條款. They missed 意 Sean0115 (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean0115: Thanks for flagging this. You can register for TranslateWiki and fix this yourself at https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikipedia_Library_Card_Platform :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper Archive[edit]

I was approved for Newspaper Archive about a month ago yet still have not received my login credentials. Who do I poke about this? TenPoundHammer (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, the coordinator for NewspaperArchive is SoWhy, who says your login was sent 14 January and again 4 February. Have you checked your spam folder? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks. I checked it twice but never found it until just now. TenPoundHammer (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

renewal notices not being sent, or maybe I don't understand what they are?[edit]

Hello -- I just had my newspapers.com access abruptly end at day 365 since my last renewal. Not a big deal, but I know it can take a little bit of time to get it up and running again and I've been working on a few articles that require this access. I've applied for a renewal and I noticed when I checked my account that I have a checkbox next to "Send renewal notices" but I know I never got any notice that my account was nearly expired. Am I understanding correctly what this does? Should I have gotten an email about it? Thanks for this great resource. Jessamyn (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Office Hours[edit]

The Wikipedia Library team will be hosting Office Hours next week!

Time: 10th February, 1pm-2pm UTC (https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1644498009)

Link: https://meet.google.com/ycm-rjos-oqc/

The Office Hours will be a chance for you to learn about how to get the most out of the library, ask us any questions that you might have, or request that we add certain content that’s of interest to you and your community. If there’s interest in future Office Hours we’d be happy to schedule more at another day/time.

Looking forward to seeing folks there, Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Wikipedia Library counterproductive to the free culture movement?[edit]

I'm having a hard time figuring out why the WM Foundation is going to this much effort to help editors add citations to Wikipedia articles that will only lead to paywalled sites which will deny access to ordinary Wikipedia users (and/or try to charge them outrageous amounts of money for access to single documents).

This topic doesn't seem to be addressed in the summaries about this project, nor in the breathless notice that was sent to me as an editor (claiming these paywall guys are "reliable sources" and that I am now eligible for "free" access to a "wide collection" of them). (At the very least, the notice should distinguish this project as "free-as-in-beer" access to unfree-as-in-freedom resources, rather than leaving the mistaken impression that these are free-as-in-freedom resources.)

When information is available in a freely published source, shouldn't Wikipedia editors prioritize citing to those, to reduce the hassle for readers and fact-checkers of the resulting article? If that's true, then searching around in proprietary journals like these should be the conscientious editor's LAST resort. None of this is mentioned either; instead there is full encouragement to use this loss-leader into this proprietary library.

And, in what sense is this the WIKIPEDIA library? None of this stuff belongs to Wikipedia. None of it is even accessible to ordinary Wikipedia users. Perhaps it should be called the Wikimedia Foundation Insiders Proprietary Access Circumventer? Gnuish (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free (free as in free beer) access to paywalled sources granted to trusted editors, enables them to provide a reference to a paywalled source with a well-written summary, which in turn makes the information freely available. (free as in freedom). Enjoy! -- Wkee4ager (👨🏼‍💻💬) 07:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnuish: Thanks for your comments. The program started, and has continued to run, because there are a significant number of community members who want to use it. We're not forcing anyone to use the library and editors are of course welcome to use or prioritise other sources. Ultimately editors are already citing these sources without using The Wikipedia Library, rather through a local or university library with access, or a personal subscription. Paywalled citations using The Wikipedia Library are in the minority in most cases. We agree, however, that editors should use freely readable sources wherever feasible. In the search results in the library we integrated Unpaywall, so there are often free-to-read versions of results available which editors can link to. In terms of providing information to editors to better explain this issue, I think we could do something, but it might be counterintuitive, especially to new users, to read a message which effectively says "you can use this but you should use something else". I'll have a think about how we might be able to do this effectively. Lastly, I don't think the name implies ownership, in the same way that any city or university library doesn't claim ownership over the journals and other online resources they subscribe to. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions: At the Wikipedia Library page, the title could change from "Over 90 of the world's top subscription-only databases, free for Wikipedians of all backgrounds" (followed by a list of criteria for "you may have already won FREE access to this marvelous library!") to: "Can't find a freely accessible source to cite? Over 90 of the world's top subscription-only databases are subsidizing free access for carefully limited numbers of Wikipedians, in the hope that we'll cite them and send them paying customers." There are also "More info" buttons at the bottom of the screen for every subscription database, but NO "More info" button for the Wikipedia Library itself (that could explain why we have it and what it is and isn't good for).
And in the short Notification that I received last week, rather than saying "Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library. Click her to browse a wide collection of free reliable sources." it could say something like, "The Wikipedia Library provides a way to get past paywalls to access a collection of reliable sources. If you can't find free-access sources to cite, click here to sign up." Also note, I have been eligible for a LONG time, but just got this notice last week. And from the comments I've read, you can't just click and browse -- it's a more arduous process. Can you at leasst remove the deceptive-sounding commercial-sounding You May Already Be A Winner style from the notification? Thank you for the think! Gnuish (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gnuish, it's a valid question, to which I suspect we don't have an answer.

Is there any study on whether the Wikimedia Foundation's promotion of paywalled sources through this program leads to an increase of the closed access rate of citations on Wikipedia articles?

The OA rate seems stable in 2021 compared to 2018, although in the meanwhile global OA rates increased, according to Bianca Kramer and Cameron Neylon's counts of OA status of DOIs referenced in Wikipedia (warning, ods link to Google; hopefully works without proprietary JavaScript and cookies): in Jeroen Bosman's words, « that result (28% gold+bronze, 11% green, 61% closed) is very close to the 2018 analysis (29% gold+bronze, 10% green, 61% closed)». Nemo 15:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deutsche Nutzungsbedingungen / German language conditions of use when applying[edit]

... ein Satz is das nich / this phrase is no phrase, and only makes sense by guessing:

"Der Zugang zu Inhalten von „The Wikipedia Library“ ist auf Community-Mitglieder mit aktivem Engagement in den Wikimedia-Projekten beschränkt und ihre Zugänge zu diesen Inhalten zum Verbessern der Projekte verwenden werden."

Should be corrected.

Could it be this ?:

~ Der Zugang zu Inhalten von „The Wikipedia Library“ ist auf Community-Mitglieder mit aktivem Engagement in den Wikimedia-Projekten beschränkt und wird gewährt, sofern ihre Zugänge zu diesen Inhalten zum Verbessern der Projekte verwenden werden. ~

S.o. with access to the original text (probably the English version) would have to check this. Greetings --MistaPPPP (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MistaPPPP: If you register for TranslateWiki you can update this yourself at https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Wikipedia_Library_Card_Platform. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MistaPPPP: Thanks for the information. I have corrected that, should be updated on the platform shortly. Sandro Halank (WMDE) (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

I still haven't gotten my login credentials for Newspaper Archive and it's been over a month. Can someone help me? TenPoundHammer (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economist access[edit]

Hello, I'm trying to access an article in The Economist magazine. Is access available through the library? Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bangabandhu: Yes, via Gale (Gale Onefile News to be precise). HHill (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Manhal don't work[edit]

Hello, I have tried Al Manhal. I searched for "Microbiology." When I try to download one of the results it don't work, I recieve the following message: 

You have reached the maximum page limits.

For full access to content on Al Manhal, contact your Library Head.

Greetings, --Kogge (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kogge: Thanks for reporting this issue, we contacted Al Manhal and I think this problem should be solved. Can you check? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it works. Thank you, --Kogge (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 edits in month[edit]

Just curious if I will need to maintain 10 edits per month to keep access. Some months I do not make that many edits. I could always do some cleanup on articles to maintain that amount, but am just curious if the 10/month is a one-time thing or not? Mikeatnip (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeatnip: That criterion is basically checked each day. That means if you dont make many edits one month, and find you can't use the library, you can simply make some edits so you have 10 in the past month and you'll be able to get back in :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Access to Benezit Dictionary of Artists?[edit]

Hi, I can't access articles in the Benezit Dictionary of Artists, provided by Oxford on line. I'm logged in and the padlock is green and open. Clicking on the link, I'm redirected to the same page. What happened? How can I read the article? Thanks--Patafisik (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gale Books don't work[edit]

"You do not have access to the requested document. " is all i get when looking for full text.--Avron (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I use collections?[edit]

OK, thanks for this opportunity but I have no idea how to use it. I applied for access e.g. to the German newspaper Stern. I was approved and now I have to provide an email address for login. I'm trying to use the email address I use for Wikipedia but there is no such user at Stern (obviously). What email address should I provide? Or how else can I log in? Thank you

Oxford Art Online[edit]

Am I the only one who has been unable to access Oxford Art Online through the Wikipedia Library (https://www-oxfordartonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/) for the past few days? Is the site down? Ficaia (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be working fine for me. Trying clearing your cache/cookies? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access Grove Music either; was working fine until this evening. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedia Library Collections Available Now - April 2022[edit]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL owl says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library has free access to new paywalled reliable sources. You can these and dozens more collections at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/:

  • Wiley – journals, books, and research resources, covering life, health, social, and physical sciences
  • OECD – OECD iLibrary, Data, and Multimedia​​ published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
  • SPIE Digital Library – journals and eBooks on optics and photonics applied research

Many other sources are freely available for experienced editors, including collections which recently became accessible to all eligible editors: Cambridge University Press, BMJ, AAAS, Érudit and more.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: log in today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Foreign Affairs access issue[edit]

When I click into Foreign Affairs，the page shows a circle rotating and "Loading..." prompt. Kethyga (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kethyga: I'm not seeing this issue, is it still happening? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
still happening, both in Firefox & Chrome. Kethyga (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF) I closed all the browser addons, and it works normally. It should have nothing to do with TWL. Thanks for your reply. Kethyga (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search is unnecessarily complex and not intuitive[edit]

If I have the exact url of a journal article, or an index code such as DOI or JSTOR, I believe it should be dead simple to access the article - but the search function here wants a whole lot of details that must be entered absolutely letter perfect to work. Meanwhile back in 'pedia a DOI code or ISBN is all that is needed to automatically generate a complete citation. Can the ability to search by DOI (or ISBN, JSTOR etc) not be incorporated in search system here? Dodger67 (talk) 11:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: Searching by either DOI or JSTOR ID works - for example searching 25780831 brings up the article you requested. If you have an exact URL you can also add a proxy prefix (eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/25780831 -> https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25780831), which should work if the article is available through that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry.com subscription = "Registered guest"[edit]

When creating biographies, I've been gratefully using my access to Ancestry.com, which shows on my Wikipedia Library account as valid through August 18, 2022. Unfortunately, today I was unable to access any Australian sources because I am apparently consigned to "Registered guest" status now. I tried chatting with a bot that returned repeatedly to the only option it could suggest: "Do you want to cancel this account?" and then it asked me to use different words. It was an endless do-loop. I also sent an email to Ancestry's Support desk, but so far only received a confirmation that I'm in a queue and "and a Customer Solutions Associate will respond shortly." I'm wondering if my recent subscription extension through Wikipedia Library was somehow lost by that dratted bot? Feeling a tad grumpy, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: Our Ancestry accounts should last a year, but they maybe last a year from when they're created rather than when you receive them, which might make that date incorrect. We've been trying to get additional accounts to distribute so that this issue can be resolved for yourself and other editors who are waiting for new/renewed accounts. In the meantime the best next step is for you to click 'Extend' (or 'Renew') for Ancestry in The Wikipedia Library so that we know you need a new account. Hopefully it won't be too long until we have those. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May not be the most helpful but you can access Ancestry for free from a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Family History Center: https://www.familysearch.org/centers/locations/ Banaticus (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Search via DOI and access inconsistency[edit]

Two searches using DOI on articles on Taylor&FrancisOnline one works the other does not?? E.g. Search entering the full doi url https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2049932 works and goes to the Taylor&FrancisOnline page

However Search entering the full doi url https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2015.1128719 does not come back with the relevant article Environmental analysis of the life cycle emissions of 2-methyl tetrahydrofuran solvent manufactured from renewable resources

If this title is then put into the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ it does not come back with the article.

It also does not work on the basic https://eds.s.ebscohost.com

However, it does work on the advanced https://eds.s.ebscohost.com search, when entered as the article title. Just click on advanced search.

You can then see a summary of the article but if you try to access the full text you get the following error.

https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=http://www.tandfonline.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1093-4529&volume=51&issue=6&spage=487

Text We are sorry, but your account does not have access to this resource. If you think you have reached this screen in error or have questions about the resource you were trying to reach, please contact your library.RonaldDuncan (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File missing: docs/suspend.htm[edit]

When trying to access collections (de Gruyter, JSTOR, ...), I now get this message instead of an access.

I am pretty sure I'm being blocked. And there is a reason, but not a malicious one: For research on articles on East Low German dialects in the German Wikipedia that I am currently creating/revising [1,2,3,4] I downloaded Tessilo's Mecklenburgian Dictionary for offline consultation from de Gruyter -- and this is some 30+ full books. I guess that fell under "mass scrape or mass download partner content" and I hit some limit or quota there and am blacklisted, now. Two questions: Can I get unblocked? If there is a quota or limit of books to retrieve, what is this limit (to make sure I don't hit it unintentionally again)?

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordmärkisch, extended

[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelm%C3%A4rkisch, new

[3] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rkische_Dialekte, extended

[4] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerano, extended

Thanks a lot, Chiarcos (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiarcos: - you're correct, and apologies for the unhelpful error message. The limit is 2GB in 60 minutes. That might be a bit low - we've had a few other users hit this limit. I'll see what we can do to increase it. There should be a more helpful error message (Phab:T305956) but I guess that's not actually working. I've unblocked you :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Chiarcos (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rock's Back Pages access[edit]

According to my library homepage, I have access to Rock's Back Pages. But when I go to the RBP site, I cannot view any articles. Viennese Waltz (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately RBP is not currently available - it should be hidden for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for letting me know. --Viennese Waltz (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be available again, so maybe someone should remove the "Not Available" flag that I currently see. --Viennese Waltz (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Q&A issues and proposal[edit]

Hi, User:Samwalton9 (WMF), TL;DR: I have a question about who's watching this page and how to get users timely responses to their questions about the Wikipedia library, and whether this is even the right place for them, and a related follow-up proposal with some ideas about how to improve the situation while simultaneously reducing the burden on WMF. I apologize for the ping (and for the long message), but you'll see why in a minute.

This all started with the section above by User:Viennese Waltz, who subsequently posted this question[ perma ] at en-wiki Help Desk when they didn't get a response here. While I perhaps would've waited longer, especially considering they posted here on a Sunday, I'm sympathetic to their question at HD about the proper method of posting questions about TWL. User:Michael D. Turnbull, responding at HD, suggested the "Contact us" link at the wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org page, but that lacks transparency in the sense that nobody else can see the question or the response, and so it may just generate the same questions over and over. This is a wiki, and it seems to me that "Contact us" links should be reserved for private matters, like stuff for T&S, messages to admins for issues like outing or redvdelling that need to remain private, but not answers to general questions about using a project like TWL.

So, now we get around to my question and comment: I get the feeling TWL doesn't have dedicated, permanent staff other than whoever at WMF has the project on their plate at the moment, and in particular, that since 2019 you're the only one monitoring this page on a regular basis. Am I right so far? If that's the case, I understand, and am not complaining about something I can't fix (maybe I'll make a donation in the next drive!) and really appreciate what you do. But I do have a proposal: can we get some kind of on-call or rotation set up, with a bunch of people monitoring this page (or an alternative venue), whether from WMF or just volunteers, so that user questions can get triaged more rapidly, maybe some of them even answered, otherwise kicked upstairs to you or other TWL experts for the more technical stuff? I think there are a ton of people who love TWL (like yours truly) who would be more than happy to be put on a list of volunteers, possibly along with a frequency or calendar parameter of when or how often they'd be willing to monitor and triage questions here (see the sign-up page for the en-wiki Wikipedia:Feedback request service for an example). I'd even go through a training to up my ability to respond, if you have one or could devise one, sort of like the way they do it at New Pages Patrol (or their NPP School), or at AFC.

The other thought or proposal, is to up the style and appearance of the response venue by switching it to a noticeboard or Help desk for the public-facing Q&A stuff, retaining this Talk page more for in-house technical stuff. I'm not that familiar with AFC, but it's an all-volunteer project at en-wiki (see participants) that handles user Q&A mostly at Draft talk pages I believe, but also at the AFC Help desk; perhaps User:Theroadislong can correct me or expand on usage there. NPP trainers Rosguill or Atsme might have thoughts about how their experience with the framework for new pages review might be similar or different than dealing with TWL Q&A.

If I was not too far off in my assumptions about staffing of TWL, then it reminds me somewhat of the situation at another WMF-related project, namely the Wikipedia:Education program (wikiedu.org; dashboard). This is another project I love, and which happens to be understaffed (even before some cutbacks a while ago) and which I pop in and out of on an irregular basis in order to try to help out with student questions when I can. Edu users @Ian (Wiki Ed), LiAnna (Wiki Ed), and Sage (Wiki Ed): may have some thoughts about their experiences with responding to student user issues. I think their Education noticeboard is a great way to deal with technical questions about Wiki edu. However, their situation is not completely analogous to TWL, as the great majority of questions about Wiki edu come from students via the Wiki edu portal and are directed to the Talk page of the individual Wiki Edu Context expert associated with a given class and not to the noticeboard, which is more for in-house stuff among staff and interested volunteers. I would think that for TWL it should probably be the reverse, with a common noticeboard or Help desk being the first stop for all users asking questions, sort of like the AFC Help desk, including TWL newbies, and that this Talk page would be devoted more to in-house stuff; but that's just my initial view of things without knowing what's under the hood at TWL.

Thanks, Sam; I'm a big fan of TWL, and I realize this is a long post, but hopefully if something comes of this, it will eventually ease your burden, not add to it, and help users at the same time. Adding @Ben Creasy and ReaderofthePack:. Mathglot (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • +1 Hi, Sam! Mathglot, TWL worked much differently back when I was a volunteer approving access. It is nothing at all like we do at NPP. Based on my experiences with the new system, it appears we have more resources but they come with a limited number of free access and are only good for 1 year, depending on the source/journal. In my situation, there is no library on this small island; therefore, I am totally dependent on Google search, and online resources via my TWL card, and however else I can get access, which slows the wheels of progress considerably when working NPP & AfC. While the new card system has given us more access to resources (kudos to Jake, you, Nikki & the team!!), it made it a bit more difficult for me (as an AfC/NPP reviewer & volunteer teacher/mentor at NPPSCHOOL) to get access to those sources, and because there appears to be a limited amount of editors per source TWL is allowed to provide, I'm on a waiting list for who knows how long. I even sent my renewal in before my present time expired and was still pushed out of the game. I was hoping AfC + NPP reviewers (and other project teams who do fact-checking & verification work) could be considered for first-priority access since we're the first line of defense in keeping garbage/spam/hoaxes out of the encyclopedia. It's much needed, especially by those of us who have no university library access, or any semblance of a library at all. Atsme📞📧 21:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughts Atsme. Just a quick clarification on how the library is now working - there's both more content and it's more seamless! The majority of library content now doesn't require you to wait for access. After you've logged in you should find a 'My Collections' tab which contains dozens of publishers' content just one click away ("Access collection"). Most of these are provided by default to all eligible users and don't require any applications or renewals. There are then another set of resources which do unfortunately still require applications. We've been moving a surprising number across to the automatic-access model in recent months thanks to the work of Vipin. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: Thanks for sharing your thoughts and writing up such a comprehensive explanation of the problem and its potential solutions! I completely agree that we could be doing more to encourage community-centred questions and answers, rather than these venues relying primarily on WMF staff to respond.
To start with a little context, you're largely correct about the current situation. My team doesn't have anyone whose primary role is to read/monitor these kinds of questions and discussions so sometimes they can go missed for longer than would be ideal. It tends to be myself or Nikkimaria who keep an eye on these pages and answer emails. You're totally right, though, that this isn't a great long-term solution. If I moved on from working at the WMF we might risk being in a place where this responsibility doesn't get moved to someone else (not that I'm planning to go anywhere in the short term!), and so I agree it would be great to set up a mechanism where community conversation and support can take place.
In terms of the practicalities, then, my feeling is that this talk page isn't a good venue because active editors tend not to be watching Meta pages - English Wikipedia editors are going to prefer to read and respond to questions on English Wikipedia, for example. The English Wikipedia TWL talk page and German Wikipedia equivalent have much more community discussion and responses than this page. One idea I had (T299510) was to contextually link to local project pages in the user's preferred language, so that they could feel more confident in posting and receiving responses in their own language. That comes with the downside that it's harder for us at WMF to monitor and respond to those discussions, but is probably a net positive. How does that sound to you?
I don't know how much benefit we would get from formalising the process of being someone who answers questions at this venue, but would it help folks like yourself if we wrote some kind of guide to how the library works and answers to common questions? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF): thanks for your comments. I agree that there doesn't necessarily have to be formalisation, it could follow more the model of en-wiki Help desk or Tea house, where any experienced user volunteer/watcher who feels like responding, responds. That said, TWL is a bit more technical, with more under the hood that might need explanation to volunteers who wished to be able to respond to users at more than a very elementary level.
So, in that light, yes, absolutely a guide like you mention would be helpful. In fact, it might be helpful to have documents at two levels: one more geared to TWL users, perhaps a FAQ to supplement what's out there already, and secondly a document to train volunteers at a higher level so we could respond to and answer a good percentage of new user questions. NPP is probably the gold standard (afaik) with both a tutorial and a training program; Atsme, Kudpung, Barkeep49 and others are good contacts about those pages.
Lastly, about venue: I agree that meta isn't the best location; maybe there could be a brief "Help page" here, with just a paragraph or two of intro, and pointers to the appropriate English and German pages, just for those who might search here first, to give them the appropriate links. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., please link the German TWL page for me. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot and Samwalton9: I'm only responding because I was pinged. I'm perfectly trilingual English-French-German, but as I am English I only contribute to the en.Wiki. I have only created about 100 articles so I have never felt any need to use the Library and I don't know how it works. I do believe that the local Wikis are the best places to ask for any help on their processes which, BTW, may be quite different from each other. However, I wrote most of the tutorial at Wikipedia:New pages patrol and I created the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/School and the New Page Patroller user right, so if you have any questions on any of those, don't hesitate to drop me a line on my en.Wiki talk page. I reply to pings and messages very promptly. Kudpung (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: That all sounds great. I'll see if we can prioritise that library ticket in the coming weeks and in the meantime will chat with the team about help/FAQ pages. The de.wiki venue is at Wikipedia Diskussion:Förderung/The Wikipedia Library. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Poor search results at CEEOL[edit]

This amount to a bug report on Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL)'s search relevance algorithm and really ought to be filed as a ticket there so they could address it. So wrt to WMF/TWL, it's more just a heads-up for you about poor search results at CEEOL. In particular, it is not a request for investigation or action on the part of WMF, other than to be aware of the situation, and wherever you maintain your internal dossiers on individual partners, please add a pointer to this report to the CEEOL dossier for future reference. Perhaps if WMF has access to CEEOL's Bugzilla-equivalent, you could raise a ticket there; other than that, I don't see anything actionable here. So, with that said, here's what I'm seeing:

The summary page of search results delivered by CEEOL's search relevance algorithm seems badly broken. I tried various queries, which return a search result summary page which either contain no results (not shown in examples below), or nonsensical, irrelevant results (see examples). Queries for "Krackow" and "Brno" got no relevant results, and a query for "Poland" turned up documents with peripheral occurrences of the word, but having little to do with the topic. It's almost as if they're returning results from their index in numerical sequence, skipping the relevance sorting step. Some examples queries, showing the top three results on the search result summary page delivered by CEEOL for each one:

That's as far as I went with it. I certainly won't be using this partner further, unless they revise their relevance algorithm. File it away and forget it, or perhaps file a ticket at CEEOL to help them out, if that's an option. (Reply not required.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Their search is weird, but the service still gives access to stuff. I just use their regular search, then copy the url into the WL-access page. Let me know if you need more on how-to-do it (give me a paper you can't access and I'll show you how I got it). Piotrus (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better navigation to partner search links at en-wiki[edit]

A discussion is taking place at en-wiki, about providing better access to partner direct search links, by implementing an intelligent nav box with links that go straight to the partner search page (or even to the partner's search result page, under parametric control). Please see en:Template talk:TWLJ#Reimagine as direct access nav box. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - feedback[edit]

We wanted to take the opportunity to collect feedback about this newsletter. It has long aimed to provide a summary of news related to The Wikipedia Library (the resources available to editors at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/) and the intersection of Wikimedia and libraries, including the 1Lib1Ref campaign. We want to evaluate whether one newsletter for all this information still makes sense, and whether there are any changes we should make moving forward. Some prompts:

  • What topics do you like to see covered? What should be added or left out?
  • How often should the newsletter come out?
  • What else should change about Books & Bytes?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for Books & Bytes to highlight various collections in each issue. I'd love to hear about the types of content that other editors find a specific collection to be most helpful finding. Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. I would like B&B to highlight databases, and what the focus on that database is (Canadian journals, biology and medicine, Eastern European arts and culture, etc.) Hopefully, this will bring to my attention databases I could use in my research, especially databases that are not utilized as often. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it short! Something to be said for resisting scope creep: longevity! Thanks for keeping it going. czar 21:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Samwalton9 (WMF) Big problem that needs more attention: Wikipedia Library is often not translated to other Wikipedias, or unfinished. Polish Wikipedia interwiki, for example, hasn't been updated for years and doesn't link to the current generation very useful tool. WMF needs to kick some affiliates so they actually notice this. Piotrus (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had another thought: When introducing new databases, it would be very useful to describe its coverage for those unfamiliar with the product. It would be a bonus to also describe some ways in which Wikipedians currently use it or how we could use it, which would help adoption. czar 15:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding idea of reviewing what kind of resources are available in a particular collection, new or old. It would also be useful to have tips and tricks on how to search (it's not obvious that you get different hits if you search directly in Proquest, for example, and at least some of the providers only give hits if the search term is in the title). Another topic of interest would be library uptake stats -- eg how has the rollout to users with 500+ edits affected library use? I'd be happy to read the newsletter more often, if there was anything to include. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I like the newsletter,and think library is brilliant.But I am certain I am not using it to its full potential. So maybe hint of the week? OR people just talk about their favourite database, and what annoys them the most, and how to get around it. Personally, I don't know how to select a quote from Google books (copy is not possible (do you use and OCR extension??), and have no idea how to pick up the chapter title and name.
  • I think also have the signpost include a link to the newsletter, with the [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request]. Just as an aside, user_talk:Megalibrarygirl would that help you as well ?
  • I'd like the newsletter to be less garish on my talk page. There's no need for a banner graphic, a box, or a stock photo, for instance. Compare with "Tech News" or The Signpost. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to send a newsletter that is unexpanded? or a switch for talk to have an old 'skool' text only? (I like the pictures, but I understand the preference) Wakelamp (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Time limit for limited accounts?[edit]

The EULA when I signed up said, "We ask that you do not request access to any publishers with a limited number of available accounts whose resources you can already access for free through your local library or university, or another institution or organization, in order to provide that opportunity to others." Would it be possible to request a term or time-limited account? If I went off on an extended wikibreak, I wouldn't want to deprive others of the chance to get ahold of my account. Perhaps simply say that anyone gone for, say, 2+ years or so would lose access to those publishers who only provide a limited number of accounts? Banaticus (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Banaticus: This is the case for most accesses and there are two mechanisms which help with this. For any proxy-based access you can request a specific length of time to have access, from 1 month to 12 months. This automatically frees up spaces as your account expires. You can also manually return your access for these collections, to proactively free up space. For other accesses, e.g. Newspapers.com, where the publisher needs to do some setup and we don't have control over the access it's harder for us to do something like this. However, those accounts usually only last a year, or we semi-regularly prune accounts by asking users if they want to continue having access. So I wouldn't worry too much about that line - if an account is useful to you now, go for it, and we'll free up space over time, either automatically or manually :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, Samwalton9. Thanks. Banaticus (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Registering for the Wiley Online Library & Science Direct[edit]

I can use other parts of the library, but although I've tried in 2 different browsers, I can't get registered for the Wiley collection. It just always returns a message that the Captcha failed. I wanted to bother Wiley about it, not you guys, but you can't access Wiley support if you can't login, so that's Catch22. Fingers crossed there's a way around this. Thank you! Hildabast (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC) I just realized that I probably have to submit an application here first. So I'll try that. Sorry! Hildabast (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbell's International[edit]

I am able to access all other databases (so I _must_ perforce be logged in, I guess), but this is what Cabbells says:

«CABBELLS Your account doesn't have any active subscriptions No journals matched your search criteria»

And it displays a blank page. Just a heads up! XavierItzm (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be an issue for all users. We've contacted Cabell's to get this resolved :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Academic[edit]

How far should it take for us to get access to Oxford? ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've got in contact with them to resolve this issue but haven't heard back yet. Hopefully not too long! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fingers crossed! I can't wait to get back on Grove Music. Nullibiquite (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Error still persists, "This account has no valid subscription for this site.". --Seryo93 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? Oxford was one of the most useful resources by far, but still seems to be inaccessible. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, opened Oxford Research Encyclopedias, and yet, it's entries have a red lock icon (that is, locked), and when you click "Sign in to an additional subscriber account" button (right under "Signed as the Wikimedia Library"), you'll notice that, "This account [i.e. Wikimedia Library] has no valid subscription for this site". Same thing occurs with, e.g. Oxford Handbooks: when you attempt to view one of the chapters, "You do not currently have access to this chapter" kicks in, despite the "Signed in as Institutional accounts The Wikipedia Library Wikipedia Library" status. And others of their sites too (MPEPIL, for example used to be avaliable via Oxford University Press Law, which is covered by WM Library, but now "This account [i.e. Wikimedia Library] has no valid subscription for this site" as well). Seryo93 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


It's working! Thank you very, very much! --Seryo93 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC) UPD: not quite, yet (ouplaw "still has Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content." mark, whilst Oxford Research Encyclopedias works; Oxford Academic (that is https://academic.oup.com/) doesn't work, "You do not currently have access to this article/chapter" pops up everywhere, despite "Signed in as Institutional accounts The Wikipedia Library Wikipedia Library"), but still thanks for ongoing effort to sort this out. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_BAD_CONFIG[edit]

I get this error when trying to visit the library page through my network but not when using cellular data. I guess there is a range block on some IPs affecting me as well?-- Texniths (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Texniths that error is generally not related to IP blocks on our servers, but something wrong in between. Restarting your router may help; if you are using a proxy it may be out of date - so try not using a proxy. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

A number of sources that previously required applications, such as Springer Link, Taylor & Francis, and Nature are now included in the standard library collection. A huge thank you to all involved that made this happen. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor and Francis[edit]

Although the site says that it is available as part of the bundle, I cannot access doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.641991. Any help would be appreciated. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

0xDeadbeef, the Wikipedia Library only subscribes to some of Taylor & Francis's collections, and it looks like that article isn't covered. I suggest making a request at en:WP:REREQ, where someone who does have access will probably be able to send you a copy. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor University Press[edit]

It doesn't appear there is a way to access the Baylor University Press resources after having been approved. The description under Available Collections says "Editors can select titles of interest from their catalogue", which goes to a 404 page. Flod logic (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Flod logic Thanks for the heads up! We've updated this link to the correct one. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idea Lab : Ask Top Sources for Share Cite Option[edit]

Not sure if there are any issues with TWL sites, but am crossposting in case Wikipedia:Village_pump_ Wakelamp (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wakelamp This is an interesting idea and one we've considered in the past. Unfortunately the ways we cite material on Wikimedia projects are just far too varied for this to be feasible. Citation styles and templates aren't just different from one Wikimedia project to the next, but even in one article to the next within one project. Add onto that complexities around all the languages we support and the fact that our templates might change, and this just ends up not really being possible on the publishers' side. The best bet, in my view, is to continue using tools like Citoid which can generate the citations on our end. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what "top sources" means here, but if you're looking for journal-level metrics, beware they usually select for the worst. Nemo 11:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot access most of Grove Music Online[edit]

I appreciate the subscription to Grove Music Online through Oxford Press, but when I search there, most articles have a lock symbol and are inaccessible. When I try to register, I am asked for $30 per month for access. The landing page does say that I have access through Wikipedia Library, but this access does not seem to work. David spector (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Oxford has been offline all month; see thread above and on the English Wikipedia talk page for the WL. I pray daily for its restoration, but so far no luck. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that TWL access to OUP resources has expired, but hopefully that will be soon reinstated. --Pafsanias (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot access "Electronic Enlightenment" and others[edit]

A number of these Wikipedia Library links simply do not login to the resource. For example, Electronic Enlightenment takes me to the proper website, but requires Login rather than logging me in automatically. When I provide my Wikipedia credentials, it fails to recognize me as a registered user. David spector (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David spector Unfortunately our access to Oxford resources expired and we're struggling to get a response from them to reinstate it. We'll keep trying and let you know when we've been able to get these accesses working again. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Press and access issues[edit]

@David spector @Espresso Addict @TheAafi @Nullibiquite @Seryo93 @Fehufanga @Olivaw-Daneel @Mike Christie @Unexpectedlydian

Hi all. Apologies for the continued issues in accessing Oxford University Press resources via the library. We had an unfortunate combination of staff absences on both sides which led to this taking longer than usual to resolve. OUP are now looking into this and have restored access to some collections. We're hoping the others will follow before long. I've tracked progress on this issue at T320236. Crossed-out items appear to be working as expected again. Please let me know if that doesn't seem to be the case.

I also wanted to let you know about a feature we just rolled out which should make this issues less confusing in the future. For collections which are having access issues we can now add notices with links to Phabricator tickets, where we'll provide updates on what we're doing to reinstate access. I've flagged the relevant outstanding Oxford University Press collections, so you should see notices next to those in your library. We'll do this for other collections which have issues in the future too as soon as we're aware of a problem. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Samwalton9 (WMF) Thanks for notifying us about this. I can still access GMO and Oxford Academic by directly visiting the wikipedialibrary URL. In addition, I can access the items there. Are the access buttons for these two going to remain disabled until everything is restored? --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 11:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
green lock does not always equal access apparently.--*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 11:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Samwalton9 (WMF), thank you for keeping us updated. I have been able to access ODNB today. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this, Samwalton9 (WMF) -- I've managed to get into Grove Music successfully, but the top-level library button is now leading to the Phabricator ticket, which is a bit confusing? Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict Good catch - I inadvertently added the unavailable tag to Music Online when that's actually working now. I've removed the notice from that collection! Samwalton9 (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for accessing Grove Art Online again. But the Benezit Dictionary of Artists is still unavailable, are you aware of this problem? Joszek (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF) Could you explain why the Benezit Dictionary of Artists is still unavailable? Joszek (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joszek Apologies for the delays on this. It looks like Grove Art access has been reinstated but Benezit has not. We just sent over another list of resources which aren't working as intended this week, so I'm hopeful this will be resolved before long. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF) Thank you for your response. I am patiently waiting for the good news. Joszek (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 (WMF), any updates on Academic? Has the foundation been able to get any response from OA? ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAafi Unfortunately we've been struggling to clarify what's happening here, I don't have any updates yet. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joszek, the Benezit Dictionary of Artists is available at the Internet Archive (partially funded by Wikimedia Italia), no need to look for it elsewhere. Nemo 11:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemo Thank you for this useful info. Appreciate this. Joszek (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot access American Psychological Association[edit]

I'm unfortunately having difficulties accessing APA's collection. When I access it, it directs me to the TWL version of APA PsycNet website but upon searching PsycArticles, the site tells me for some of the articles that I need to get access by purchasing the PDF or accessing it through an institution (there's also Get Access buttons alongside the inaccessible PsycArticles). Has anything happened with the collection, e.g. has Wikipedia's partnership with APA expired? Nothing turned up when I searched about this issue in the archives here in Meta. LightNightLights (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LightNightLights Thanks for the heads up! It looks like we last extended access to APA in October last year, so it seems like this lapsed. I've asked them to extend our access. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! LightNightLights (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LightNightLights This is now renewed and working again :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

search function[edit]

If I do the search in [1], there is "We are unable to validate your login credentials. Please contact your institution for assistance." However, If I can do the search in https://eds-s-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/eds/search/basic?vid=4&sid=c321d17b-71ed-4a2b-b131-fd15da9b64be%40redis Kethyga (talk) 08:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kethyga That's strange - it seems to work for me. Can you try again and let me know if you're still having an issue? Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time. I have solved the issue. As I use en:Zotero and set "Proxy Settings" in Zotero preferences, so it would redirect some EBSCOhost domains. Kethyga (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking[edit]

Do I recall correctly that, recently, the Basic Bundle included access to Newspapers.com ? I could have sworn it did, briefly.

I see it now includes access to Newspaperarchive.com, but that's different... I think. DS (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven It doesn't yet but it will soon: T322916 :) Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh cool. (And the search box on NewspaperArchive autocompletes to one of my pet projects, so I guess that answers that.) DS (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR and Youtube[edit]

The video tutorial for how to use JSTOR is private. Even if it's not generally available, it should at least be visible if one follows the link here.

(I've pretty much figured it out already, but I'd be interested to see if there's anything I haven't noticed yet.) DS (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven Thanks for the heads up - I hadn't noticed. It was a JSTOR-published video, so I'll just remove the link for now and see if there's a suitable replacement. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wikipedia_Library/Archive_2&oldid=25792097"