Physics Journal May Reconsider Wikipedia Ban 155
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."
Rather obvious solution (Score:5, Funny)
Quantum Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quantum Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quantum Wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe I'm in the wrong field (Score:4, Funny)
No, that is only funny if you do it to the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Re:Or Better Yet (Score:3, Funny)
Stanford algorithms expert, Donald Knuth [stanford.edu](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?".
Re:Rewriting (Score:3, Funny)
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...