This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
JSTOR article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
JSTOR was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have created template:JSTOR to put at the end of articles on academic journals. It takes the value "no" which is the number and "name". e.g.
{{JSTOR|no=00063444|name=Biometrika}}
gives JSTOR ISSN 00063444 Dunc| ☺ 09:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dunharris, instead of an edit war please post your link showing that all images must be on the right side and cant be on the right side. These are guidelines, sometimes esthetically things make sense and look good on the left and are done that way. Stbalbach 15:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
The image of the Giant J looks asthetically better on the left because
Dunc has moved it back to the right. He has a history of being obsessive about image locations, in fact he vandalized Wetmans personal page back on April 20th to prove his point on another article over this same issue. Stbalbach 16:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
For reference, the Manual of Style suggests but does not require image placement at the right.
In this case, my subjective opinion is that the J logo to the left is more aesthetically pleasing, but of course that's subject to review. As Stbalbach says, it echoes the style of illuminated manuscripts with a leading drop cap; I think it looks classy. -- TenOfAllTrades ( talk/ contrib) 03:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
This is a straw poll to determine if the "J" image should be on the left side or right side of the page.
The image of the Giant J looks asthetically better on the left because:
For reference, the Manual of Style suggests but does not require image placement at the right.
As User_talk:TenOfAllTrades says above: "As it echoes the style of illuminated manuscripts with a leading drop cap; I think it looks classy."
Michael Snow, there was some deleted text in the recent edits, and I noticed you said "per request of JSTOR" in the edit notes. Did JSTOR ask that this text be deleted? It was accurate information. -- Stbalbach 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Some of us are working on updating the general lists of article and bibliographic databases, each of which will have an article or stub. So we'd like to cooperate with others keeping track.
Could user 128.112.164.182 please email or leave a message on
User:DGG. I'd like to get in touch with someone who obviously also knows this well. (and anyone else interested)
I at any rate am not plannning to add individual journals, unles there's a reason--there's 8,000 in WoK and 10 X that outside it, not even counting the extinct ones. Unless there's something special to say, I think the journals' web pages are good enough & easy to find with a web search. I know others here differ, and I wouldn't dream of persuading them, but I only want to do the dbs. DGG 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What does the acronym JSTOR stand for?-- Lucy-marie 23:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that someone needs to call the faculty of JSTOR to find out if it actually stands for something. A teacher talked about it, and said that she called the faculty, but the faculty said that the acronym was random. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.107.66.13 ( talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
"I thought that the JSTOR acronym did not stand for anything"
If it does not stand for anything, it is (by definition) not an acronym. --- Dagme ( talk) 19:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
What does JSTOR have no physics journals? Michael Hardy 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
By our own Policy on fair use, only one of the two images can reasonably be used.
Any thoughts? If no answers, I'll go ahead and keep the logo for the third possibility. Circeus 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have failed this article for a number of reasons, detailed below:
These problems are minor, and the article is not that far from being resubmitted. I wish you luck in regards to improvements to this article. Any questions should be forwarded to my talk page. Cheers, Anonymous Dissident Talk 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I had actually placed this article "under review" and then Anonymous Dissident failed it (I have asked him not to do that in the future). [1] I am putting it on hold. Here are my suggestions for improvement:
Prose (I have taken the liberty of doing some copy editing myself):
If you have any questions about this review, let me know. Just drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to re-review the article. Awadewit | talk 22:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am failing the article, as not all of the above conditions have been met. Awadewit | talk 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
My main critics of JSTOR are:
Visarga ( talk) 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a section regarding access policy issues experienced by many internet users who don't match any of JSTOR's access offers. I hope that the other editors will let it live, even if not in its original form. It is an important issue regarding access to scientific knowledge for the individual scholars and many users who are lucky enough to get access don't realize it. Visarga ( talk)
How does one mention the access rip-off in measured terms in the article? Say I'm researching a polymath like Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne and I'm looking for his obit in Man in 1945. There it is, Vol. 45, (Jan. - Feb., 1945), pp. 20-21; stable url -www.jstor.org/stable/2793014; just 2 pages and they want $20 for it. Yes I can go to the library and download it for free, and generate lots of carbon en route. This restricts "knowledge" to monopolising institutions with increasing levels of jargon. The humble taxpayer is paying to generate knowledge in universities, but when he wants it easily he is being shafted. I much prefer the PLoS system. 78.19.217.160 ( talk) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Unethical Cookies Jstor promises access to older documents outside of copyright and sent my computer many unwanted cookies. The cookies are sent if you only click on a page and stay for a second. It does not matter if you click yes or no on the Cookie Notice, they will still be sent. This whole site is a money-grubbing rip off scam. Someone should write this up in the main document, but I assume the owners of Jstor are creating and updating their own page and they would delete the Truth from the main page. These cookies will stay on the average user’s computer for a long time because the users are unsophisticated. I will never click on Jstor again and I suggest a complete boycott to everyone. Ty78ejui ( talk) 15:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Article needs updating now that JSTOR has current collections in addition to archive collections. Current Scholarship Program at JSTOR. Nurg ( talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think JSTOR deserves mention of their involvement in the arrest and prosecution of Aaron Swartz, a researcher at Harvard, on trumped up hacking charges. Aaron was involved in the creation of RSS and has fought for net-neutrality and free exchange of data online. He is accused of downloading too many articles from JSTOR, even though he is credentialed through his academic affiliation to do so. I can't see how he could have possibly been arrested for that with which he is charged, but I am one who strongly believes in things like free exchange of ideas and information. However, perhaps someone would like to add something, or, if later I add something, edit and review it to make sure it sits comfortable as not having any point of view. Adrade ( talk) 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6554331/Papers_from_Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society__fro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slark ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
These bastards killed Aaron Swartz.
Why wasn't that made clear in this article? Who edited out the information that documented JSTOR's culpability in this tragedy? This is important because this event, in this year 2013, will be a turning point in cyber law and data access. I suspect Wikipedia editor's have financial ties to JSTOR and its supporting institutions and have continually modified the article to remove any mention or citations about the stupidity, greed, and callousness of JSTOR and MIT re the Swartz tragedy.
Who keeps removing the damaging truth? And why? Youth wants to know. 75.62.131.249 ( talk) 21:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I've lightly edited External links (correcting one, adding one, annotating both) specifically to help enable all Wikipedia readers to freely access JSTOR citations. I don't feel lightly about these links, though - they are crucial.
This is very important for the many reasons cited in the ""Access to JSTOR articles" Talk section above and particularly timely now that JSTOR is a "partner" of Wikipedia Library, with up to 500 Wikipedians freely enabled to fully access JSTOR, with the expectation that editors will give JSTOR back a little link love, e.g., (after the citation template), a subscription required template of the form:
{{Subscription required |via=[[JSTOR]]}}
So this article will get some more hits. If readers click on that subscription template's JSTOR link they should get help immediately in the most obvious place, External links. 1) Home page is a given. 2) Library card holder access and the now stable 3) Register & Read limited free access program are both very important links to have handily visible in this article, as many already have free access and don't know it and others can easily get free access of a sort best specified, as here. 4) Citation locator is a common courtesy, useful for those tracking down a poorly formatted citation to an article claimed to be on JSTOR. Thus, current external links are the four most critical (IMHO):
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help).Paulscrawl ( talk) 17:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What are the MIT stable links/ JSTOR stable? Is there a pledge/fund that ensures they won't delete URLs to papers/online appendixes?
After short research I couldn't clarify this. Diceypoo ( talk) 11:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on JSTOR. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be removed: "Internet activist Aaron Swartz noted that by limiting access to the knowledge produced at public universities and financed by the US government and students, JSTOR was earning billions of US dollars each year to for-profit corporations that did not invest in any of these public works. Instead of benefiting the creators of the knowledge or its sponsors, JSTOR secured multi-billion dollar profits for private publishers, by repackaging their publications in academic databases that university libraries pay thousands of dollars to subscribe to, so that their students can access the content.[22]"
Explanation of issue: Hello, I am employed by JSTOR. We noticed that the information above is incorrect and we would like to clarify it for correction. We are happy to discuss with any of the editors further, and look forward to working together.
The information in the above paragraph does not reflect the information in the cited article, and misrepresents facts. JSTOR is a digital library that provides access to academic journals, ebooks, images, and primary sources. As a not-for-profit, the claim that JSTOR brings about “multi-billion dollar profits” either to itself or to publishers is wrong.
JSTOR licenses its content from the publishers themselves. Our fees go to pay the publishers and to digitize more content, apply metadata and OCR, deliver it on the platform, and preserve it for future users.
Unlike the claim in the entry, the content in JSTOR is not financed by the US government, and any content in JSTOR that was originally open access remains open access. The person who wrote that section of this article in Wikipedia may have confused us with PACER, the repository for federal judicial documents that is mentioned in the citation but has no relation to JSTOR.
We propose removing the text above, as the rest of the section outlines the case.
References supporting change: NY Time article cited in original text: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html
JSTOR not-for-profit status and earnings: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/133857105
Themanfromstarwars (
talk)
15:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Citation 6 appears to be broken. -- CommieKarlovy ( talk) 22:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Provide link 103.225.138.114 ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
References 103.225.138.114 ( talk) 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I want the plant 😡😡😡🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 2600:8800:318C:FA00:102D:79A8:4973:F6B4 ( talk) 02:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
data that confirms the existence and seriousness of the problem 2001:4454:74A:2100:F03B:C801:7374:BBCA ( talk) 12:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
students attitude and behavior in school 1uagy2gs8wkwl ( talk) 00:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)