The Signpost

Technology report

New guideline for technical collaboration

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Evad37 and Headbomb
Related articles
Technology report

Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged
4 December 2023

Top scholarly citers, lack of open access references, predicting editor departures
27 March 2022

The Wikipedia SourceWatch
31 March 2019

New guideline for technical collaboration
4 November 2016

Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
25 March 2015

Wikipedia predicts flu more accurately than Google; 43% of academics have edited Wikipedia
30 April 2014

Licensed for reuse? Citing open-access sources in Wikipedia articles
15 January 2014

Loss of an Internet genius
14 January 2013

Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends
28 May 2012

Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication
14 May 2012


More articles

Over the past few months, Trappist the monk, Pintoch, Headbomb, and many commenters have toiled on citation templates to facilitate the flagging of freely accessible content, in line with Wikipedia's commitment to promoting free culture and open access where possible. As part of the overhaul, access icons have been designed to be displayed for various levels of access:

– for a full version of a source that is freely accessible, with no conditions
– for a full version of a source that is freely accessible, with some conditions (e.g. free registration is required, only the first 5 reads are free, etc.)
– for a full version of a source that is not freely accessible (e.g. paid subscription is required).

The appearance of these icons is currently under debate, and should not yet be considered final or set in stone. The access icons are supported by both Citation Style 1 (like {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}) and Citation Style 2 ({{citation}}) templates. Identifier templates like {{arxiv}}, {{bibcode}}, and {{doi}} will be updated to match the behaviour of the citation templates so that manually formatted references can benefit from the new locks. The exact behaviour of the citation templates as to when those locks should be displayed is also currently under debate. What is presented below is the as-of-writing behaviour of the template, after the first round of updates, and should not yet be considered final.

URL

Because links from |url= are normally freely available, non-free links (given in |url=) can now be flagged as restricted/non-free via |url-access=

The |registration=yes and |subscription=yes options are now discouraged, and should be replaced with |url-access=registration and |url-access=subscription, respectively. This will resolve the ambiguity of the message in a case like:

where it is unclear which link requires registration; whereas the new style will make it clear:

Whether the templates should support |url-access=free to display green locks after the primary link is currently under debate. The full deprecation of |registration=yes and |subscription=yes will depend on the outcome of the RFC.

Always-free identifiers

Several identifiers, namely:

will always link to freely available sources, and will automatically display the green open lock.

Sometimes-free identifiers

Identifiers that link to sometimes freely available full versions can now be flagged with |<id>-access=free, where <id> stands for the associated identifier parameter. That is:

Whether the templates should support |<id>-access=limited/registration/subscription to display yellow and red locks after these identifiers is currently under debate.

Always non-free identifiers

Non-free identifier, or identifiers that never link to full versions of the reference, remain plain. These include:

Whether the templates should support |<id>-access=limited/registration/subscription to display yellow and red locks after these identifiers is currently under debate.

But what does this mean for me?

Flagging free-to-read identifiers (or articles that are not free-to-read) is optional: no one is required to make use of the new features of the citation templates. However, those who like to go the extra mile should easily be able to adapt to the new system.

If you cite freely accessible sources with a template like {{cite web|url=http://www.example.com|title=...}}, or offline sources through templates like {{cite book}}, there is (as of now) no need to change how you do things. However, if you cite registration- or subscription-based online mainstream publications, it is best to add |url-access=registration or |url-access=subscription. These replace the current |registration=yes and |subscription=yes (which are now discouraged and will likely be phased out over the next few months), or alternatively, the need to append {{registration required}} and {{subscription required}} templates after citations.

If you cite scientific journals with a template like {{cite journal|doi=10.1234/123456|title=...}}, it can be tricky to determine whether the source is freely accessible, especially if you work in academia or are a college/university student. Academic institutions will often have subscriptions, and all internet traffic going through the institution's servers will be granted access. For those reasons, it is best if you verify whether a source is free to read when you are at home before adding |doi-access=free, unless you know the journal has an open-access policy. (The same applies for the other identifiers, like |jstor= and |jstor-access=free.)

New bots like User:OAbot will be developed to make use of the new parameters (subject to trial and community consensus), while existing bots like User:Citation bot and User:Bibcode Bot can be updated to make use of them.

I don't use citation templates. Does this affect me?

If you don't use citation templates, then this shouldn't affect you. However, if you do make use of identifier templates like {{arxiv}}, {{bibcode}}, and {{doi}}, those will be updated to match the behaviour of the citation templates. If they end up supporting only |doi-access=free, so will {{doi}}. But if they end up supporting |doi-access=free/limited/registration/subscription, then so too will {{doi}}.

Community resources and coordinated efforts

Readers interested in improving the flagging of free-to-read sources can coordinate efforts at WP:SIGNAL, a subsection of WikiProject Open Access. If you have an idea for a new bot but lack the technical skill or time to make one, you can make request for one at WP:BOTREQ. If you know of additional identifiers (especially free ones) that should be supported by citation templates, make a request at Help:CS1. H

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Great to see captions fixed. We have more than 140 medical videos we have been translating into other languages so this was much needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSTI template

It seems to me that Template:OSTI's deletion was confirmed and the discussion about that decision is archived, so I see little hope that it will be restored when this article will be published. (But I agree it would be useful to have it.) − Pintoch (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active#Template:OSTI and from what I can surmise, it seems fairly likely to be overturned. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the link, dunno why I ignored the banner… − Pintoch (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea

Sorry for the lolspeak, but I think that DIS IS SRSLY STOOPID. IT WIL PROBLY END WIF A HYOOG INTARWEBZ FITE INVOLVIN TEH ITTEH BITTEH KITTEH DISPOOT REZLOOSHUN COMMITTEH. IM PRETTEH SHUR TEH ADMINZ WIL SAY "O RLY? YA RLY! NO WAI!" WEN DEY SEE DAT SUMKITTEH WAZ IN DERE ARTIKLEZ ADDIN DISTRACTIN IKONZ TO DERE SAUCEZ. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0