Wikipedia talk:OCLC

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Massively-Multiplayer Online Bibliography[edit]

Have you guys seen this? It looks interesting. Klortho (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, following the discussions about it. Very cool idea. Ocaasi^{t | c} 22:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying Dewey numbers on Wikipedia pages[edit]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia seeks to accurately introduce subjects to readers. No encyclopedia can ever hope to provide the detail of a good book on the subject, and so we ought to be facilitating users moving from a Wiki page to reference works. The obvious step here is to guide readers to the appropriate section of a library. Online databases seem to concentrate on North America and a few national and university libraries. For the serious research student this may be fine, but for a high school student (one of Wiki's target audiences, see wp:RF) it is a stumbling block. A local library in a small town or neighbourhood, or even the school library, is a likely next step. As I understand it, most such libraries use the Dewey system, certainly throughout the English speaking world (and this is the English Wikipedia).

I have suggested elsewhere (WikiProject Templates) the use of templates either as hat notes or in the See Also section to guide the reader to the appropriate section of a library. The discussion has brought up WorldCat and Forward to Libraries, but these rely on online databases with the problems outlined above. My aim would be simply to give a neutral number. The discussion above has also touched on the issue of libraries taking local decisions but I suspect that this is a complication too far. I have generated a hat note style template and a few test cases, see User:Martin of Sheffield/sandbox for the template and User:Martin of Sheffield/sandbox3 for the test examples (including error conditions).

One thing that has come out of the discussion is the question of copyright. The views of OCLC need to be sought to see if this usage comes within their copyright, and if so, are they prepared to permit such a usage to Wikipedia? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin of Sheffield}! Are you suggesting OCLC controls the usage of Dewey Decimal numbers in such a way that we would not be able to link them on appropriate pages? I will certainly inquire with them, but as a layman, I suspect linking to these numbers on Wikipedia pages would be well within our usage rights. I will seek more specific guidance: can you tell me more precisely what you think OCLC would need to share/permit? Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: See the bottom of that WikiProject_Templates thread that he linked, which is where the concerns arose (from someone else). –Quiddity (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this up Ocaasi. I was concerned and felt it needed clarification; not only am I not a lawyer, I'm also working on the other side of the pond and our laws differ from theirs (yours?). As Quiddity pointed out, I'm not the only one who is concerned. Feel free to show them the draft templates in my sandbox. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin of Sheffieldi: Thanks Martin, I am speaking with OCLC about this today. Will get some answers and see what we can do. Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin of Sheffield and I just had a convo about this on my talk page. I'm happy to do what I can do to advance this issue on my end! Merrilee (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a tag line to ~~Hartley Colliery Disaster~~ as an example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC) See old version (original reverted by administrator Redrose64).Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OCLC Live Citation Links[edit]

OCLC links in citations are now live links, similar to ISBN links. Technically, how is this accomplished? We have a request for similar functionality at Wikiversity. I've tried following the Citation template and corresponding module, but I don't find OCLC tags referenced anywhere. Is this implemented in one of the templates, or is it a separate feature built into or added to the wiki software itself? -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Braunschweig (talk) I have been using them in this way, adding at end of Works and publications sections, i.e., Walter Liedtke - Works and publications. BrillLyle (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.), and Liedtke, Walter A. The Milkmaid by Johannes Vermeer / Walter Liedtke. New York : The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2009 OCLC 839735356

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources[edit]

See

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Concerns" section[edit]

Much of this page read like a promotional piece on behalf of this corporation. In particular, large parts of the "Concerns" section (in this version) looked like strawman criticism to me, especially the insinuation that only commercial competitors were concerned about monopolistic practices, or this "oh OCLC is just too innovative and positively disruptive to the establishment, just like us" claim: "OCLC also has a 'mandate to innovate', and their research has been a source of positive disruption in the industry. This is a feature not a bug, but it puts OCLC in the spotlight when new features threaten established business models. Wikipedia is no stranger to that dynamic." I have removed the latter, and added a very brief summary about why OCLC has been controversial among librarians and free culture activists too.

(I already talked briefly with Ocaasi about this a while ago; it's possible that his views may have evolved since the original version of page was written some years ago. Certainly, the Wikimedia movement has since seen further debates about collaborations with partners that some saw as incompatible with Wikipedia values; where Jake articulated thoughtful, nuanced positions.)

I know that there are some awesome individuals working at OCLC who are strong supporters of Wikipedia and our mission - all power to them! But overall, claims that there is an automatic, full, natural alignment with this corporation and its practices seem dubious to me.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts HaeB. More than anything, this page is just out of date and reflects an early outlook on the partnership, which has advanced in more concrete and less theoretical ways. I think your edits reflect a open critique that is fair to place on this page. I need to give the rest of the page a pass. Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]