Talk:The Open Definition

The Open Definition has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 17, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Open Access Mid‑importance

The Open Definition is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen

Edit request

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I would appreciate if someone replaced the content of the page, except the categories, with User:Buidhe paid/Open definition. I've rewritten and expanded the page based on independent sources. Buidhe paid (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done good work! ——Serial Number 54129 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Sohom (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Open Definition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Buidhe paid (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna take a stab at this. Sohom (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and it has become ~~something~~ of a standard.
I think discussing Gartner's alternative would be DUE here.
- Done
Lawyer Andrew Katz criticizes this definition for not doing enough to guarantee transparency and prevent vendor lock-in. Why?
- Expanded
Made some small CE edits
Source review is pending
Looking at the Martin 2022 source, it might make more sense to talk in brief (maybe just one line) about David Wiley's interpretation of the open-content as well as Bruce Peren's definition (again a single line) since those seem relevant to the content at hand.
- Done
Sourcing seems to check out
MOS tends to prefer that there are no citations in the lede, with the lede being mostly a summary of content in the article.
- It is, but former names are expected to be included in the lead and direct quotations have to be cited even if they summarize the body.

The rest seems great, thanks for working on this article. :) Sohom (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki99 summary

Summary of changes as a result of the Wiki99 project (before, after, diff):

Complete rewrite from reliable sources
Fixed unsourced content issues and overreliance on the Open Knowledge Foundation as a source for its own definition
Significant expansion, more than tripling in size
Added information on topics such as: related free/open content definitions, the specific criteria of the Open Definition, and derivative definitions
Achieved peer-reviewed Good Article status

Further possibilities for improvement:

Keep the article updated if new sources are published

Buidhe paid (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]