Elsevier Launching Rival To Wikipedia By Extracting Scientific Definitions Automatically From Authors' Texts
from the don't-do-as-we-do,-do-as-we-say dept
Elsevier is at it again. It has launched a new (free) service that is likely to undermine open access alternatives by providing Wikipedia-like definitions generated automatically from texts it publishes. As an article on the Times Higher Education site explains, the aim is to stop users of the publishing giant's ScienceDirect platform from leaving Elsevier's walled garden and visiting sites like Wikipedia in order to look up definitions of key terms:
Elsevier is hoping to keep researchers on its platform with the launch of a free layer of content called ScienceDirect Topics, offering an initial 80,000 pages of material relating to the life sciences, biomedical sciences and neuroscience. Each offers a quick definition of a key term or topic, details of related terms and relevant excerpts from Elsevier books.
Significantly, this content is not written to order but is extracted from Elsevier's books, in a process that Sumita Singh, managing director of Elsevier Reference Solutions, described as "completely automated, algorithmically generated and machine-learning based".
It's typical of Elsevier's unbridled ambition that instead of supporting a digital commons like Wikipedia, it wants to compete with it by creating its own redundant versions of the same information, which are proprietary. Even worse, it is drawing that information from books written by academics who have given Elsevier a license -- perhaps unwittingly -- that allows it to do that. The fact that a commercial outfit mines what are often publicly-funded texts in this way is deeply hypocritical, since Elsevier's own policy on text and data mining forbids other companies from doing the same. It's another example of how Elsevier uses its near-monopolistic stranglehold over academic publishing for further competitive advantage. Maybe it's time anti-trust authorities around the world took a look at what is going on here.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: definitions, knowledge, open access
Companies: elsevier
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Department of Redundancy Dept.
This is repetitive, redundant, and repeats itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Department of Redundancy Dept.
Just like Elsevier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
Again utter inconsistency, that this tiny "walled garden" of definitely voluntary use is a hazard, but global mega-corps such as Google and Facebook must be left entirely free.
What exactly is your hatred for Elsevier based on, that you rail at it for synthesizing definitions and call for it to be officially investigated?
Let's look at Wikipedia itself -- at least TOO: it's loaded with biases and arbitrary rules, isn't a commons but is private, one of the many scrapers. As source of information, it's got the usual globalist / corporatist / NYTimes position, and plays down all others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No way, eh
Oh wait, wrong Elsevier, and no Bob and Doug to save us this time.
We are doomed, eh. No way hoser, someone will step up and do the right thing... hahahahaha
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
Google wishes to index all the worlds knowledge, and to provide platforms where people can publish knowledge for free, and without assigning copyright to them, so if you want you can publish elsewhere at the same tine, or move your content elsewhere.
Wikipedia want to make all the worlds knowledge available for free.
So that two companies trying to help the world develop new ideas, and one that wants to control the worlds knowledge, and tax everybody trying to improve the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
When other positions have factual, independently verifiable information to back them, Wikipedia posts them, whether people like it or not. Just because someone offers a position or a claim on a given subject does not mean their claim should be taken seriously or given credibility by the mere fact that it exists. Plenty of dumb assholes believe the Earth is flat; that does not mean Wikipedia needs to act as if those claims are even remotely credible, let alone worth serious consideration in light of all the evidence that says the Earth is a spheroid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No matter how you feel about Elsevier the article misses a few relevant points that could have been found with a small amount of research.
The content Elsevier has created for this new service can be accessed and cited by anyone either using this page or with a web search.
Wikipedia editors can apply to [The Wikipedia Library(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library) for free access to content for research purposes from a number of science publishers including Elsevier.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Department of Redundancy Dept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL, Elsevier doesn't even know who they're competing against.
When people want to look something up they don't wikipedia it, they google it.
Google just happens to point to wikipedia a large amount of the time you look at stuff.
If Elsevier's site isn't freely available and able to be found by google it won't be too successful at stopping this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Department of Redundancy Dept.
If my comment above gets a spot on the list this week, yours should go along with it. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a Science Wikipedia
The main purpose seems to be to keep people away from Wikipedia and Google, where they would likely find (free) content from providers other than Elsevier.
Suggested alternative: https://scholar.google.com searches the entire science universe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm ready to pirate the entire thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
No, they can not - because it is not a monopoly.
Now, if they were to express their disillusionment with the corporate policy making of google or better yet .. the entire gambit of business in general ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What ... stopping people from accessing information without paying some toll keeper? - OMG, the horror!
When people want to look up something ... they use a search engine ... there are several that produce acceptable results.
Google provides links to many sites, some of them are actually relevant to your search criteria.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Starve the leech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Starve the leech
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
- bias
- POV
- original research
- conflict of interest
- dependency on "reliable" sources
- edit wars
- sockpuppetry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing? ... just as I thought
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Starve the leech
So you 'leave' them those papers, but refuse to add any more if at all possible. As more and more papers come out that they don't control their position will gradually weaken and they will lose the power they currently hold as gatekeeper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
Cinema sites are the same. Search for what's on in the local cinema and now in google, you just get google.
I think you'll find lot's of examples like that with small start ups being bought or just dropped by google as google increases its reach.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
Do you have any evidence that Google was deliberately downgrading results for those other sites, as opposed to showing the 'big' ones because more people went there? It could very well be that they saw less traffic simply because people in your country switched who they were buying from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: OH, this calls for anti-trust, eh? BUT NEVER GOOGLE???
[ link to this | view in thread ]