Template talk:Open navbox

I have no idea what I am doing

I have been unable to find any authoritative source or trend in the literature on "openness". Here are some of the concerns I have about this navbox:

1. I do not know the top-level descriptive term which encompasses all other terms related to "openness". I thought about open knowledge, open data, open culture, open content, and others, but none of them sounded perfect and I was unable to find any system in journal articles which categorized these things under a single heading. If anyone knows of any taxonomy for this, especially one with subheadings, the please post a reference to it here.
2. I do not know what subheadings ought to be in this navbox, or what the criteria for inclusion ought to be. Right now it is just a collection of some topics which came to my mind. The subheadings I have in the box now are concepts, tools, organizations for openness, activists for openness, and projects. There could be additional entries in all of these subheadings, but especially the activists, organizations, and projects sections could have unlimited entrants. I would like only prominent projects listed, or otherwise for this navbox to be broken later to categorize those groups in some other way.
3. Since there is no specific universally accepted term in the literature defining an "openness" concept, many of the concepts in this navbox cannot be easily verified with reliable sources as connecting to an overarching principle. I am concerned that parts of this box violate WP:OR, but also I feel that there is something fundamental connecting, for example, Open source with Open science because it seems obvious to me that the concepts share premises even if I do not have literature which spells this out explicitly. This is another reason why I would like to see sources.

Please, anyone, get it touch with me if you have ideas about how this box should work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Harmonize openness grouping systems

I found some other grouping systems. There is overlapping content. Probably when more grouping systems are identified, then all of them can be considered together and harmonized.

• Template:FOSS
• Template:Intellectual property activism

Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Placement of this box

I put this box on all pages listed in the subheading "concepts". This is the first and most important subheading in this box. I am not sure whether to put this box on other pages, especially since I want to get feedback first about what should go into this box. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename of title

Open movement is an undefined term, invented here and not described in the Open source article. Its not a good title, and does not follow any of the Wikipedia's naming conventions. Suggest renaming it to Free and open source concepts. Belorn (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You are completely correct that "open movements" is a term invented on Wikipedia. I am very open to a move, but am not sure that "Free and open source concepts" is better. Can you suggest any sourcing or precedent for why your suggestion is an improvement? Is it not also invented here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We already have free and open source software category, so this would follow the same name style. That said, it does fail one of the same requirements that open movements do, that is: Particularly for technical subjects, use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources, so that those sources may be used to support inclusion of articles.. Maybe free and open source communities would be better? Looking at google, that term is at least widely used. As a side note, I am not sure where this discussion should take place. Is it here, the category, or at the WP:CFD?. It is also a bit confusing that the category, and template title is two different ones. Belorn (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what to do about the confusion, but I can help find a place for the discussion. I would recommend keeping the discussion either here or on the category page, and have one of them have a note directing to the discussion on the other. CFD is a place for posting a short summary of the arguments for renaming and it can help get attention to any discussion, but by putting the discussion on a template or category page it makes it easier to find all past discussion on an issue. The CFDs are continually archived. In any case, the discussion on the talk pages should link also to the discussion on the CFD board.

Most of the entries in this table are not "communities" so I do not support a change to that, but I am still in agreement with you that the current name is not good. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I created a CFD, and feel free to join with a new name suggestion. I personally only have one requirement: it need to be a name found in sources. If that mean we need to cut out some of the linked topics, so be it, through Im hopeful can we find a name that fits all the existing topics. Belorn (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Open peer review

Despite the use of the word "open", I don't think this article belongs in this navbox, because OPR is not intrinsically connected to OA. Subscription based journals can employ OPR and many OA journals don't employ OPR. You might just as well include Open Door Policy... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Open door policy is unwelcome here... opr is related to academic journals but I do not know enough about this to comment. It seems to me that opr is a new concept related to the transparency movement. I removed it at your suggestion but I am ambivalent about whether it should be here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not really new. I don't recall when I first heard of the concept, but am pretty sure that it was way before the OA movement (probably pre-Internet...). DGG might know. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)