Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:HighBeam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Existing access

"You do not have free online access to HighBeam through your local library or university" this may seem obvious but many local library users are not aware of what they have access to. Perhaps there si a list we can link to. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

JSTOR

The JSTOR requests page is now up: Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access Raul654 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Original citation"

I have no idea what "2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article" means. What is an "original citation"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe an original citation refers to citing the original author, publishers etc of the original article in addition to saying where you got it from.Jason Rees (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Still unclear; why would one not cite the author, publisher, etc? That's standard ... whatever this wording is trying to say, it's not saying it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it's simply intended as a reminder that HighBeam is republishing articles, and is not the original publisher. So, in a citaion template, we should give something like "publisher=Original Publisher, via HighBeam" and not "publisher=HighBeam". cmadler (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Did I miss the bit where we're supposed to add credit to Highbeam in the refs? Sounds unappealing. I never put, "ABC journal, via JSTOR", nor does any publication I know of.... I'm all for giving HighBeam credit in any way possible, but not by adding shout-outs to the refs section... no... and how can you link to an article if it's behind a subscription-only paywall? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The way I understood this was that the original publisher should be given as usual, but an url link should be added to the HighBeam article page. Nageh (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
...which is behind a paywall, no? Ling.Nut3 (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see the abstract or some introductory text is always accessible via an url. Nageh (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) If you click the link and are not signed in, you still get a part of the article, and an invitation to sign in or sign up. cmadler (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This is still clear as mud to me, but I hope whatever this "requirement" is, that it is in line with our internal citation guidelines. Perhaps we'll get some clarification. I never link to stuff behind paywalls (on medical articles, we link to URLs only when full text is free, and to PMIDs or DOIs on all journal articles, and those lead readers to the subscription only or for-a-fee version, so I'm confused here). Samples of with and without free text in a medical article using PMIDs:

  • with free full text available: Otte C (2011). "Cognitive behavioral therapy in anxiety disorders: current state of the evidence". Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 13 (4): 413–21. PMC 3263389. PMID 22275847.
  • without free full text available, but found by following PMID or DOI: Ridgway N, Williams C (2011). "Cognitive behavioural therapy self-help for depression: an overview". J Ment Health. 20 (6): 593–603. doi:10.3109/09638237.2011.613956. PMID 22126636. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Could the folks who put this proposal together please indicate how we are to incorporate HighBeam if we use it in a cite journal template on a medical article such as those above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Guidelines are good. I love the smell of guidelines in the morning... I suggest that whoever is heading up this initiative toddle over to WT:FAC and start a civil little discussion on the topic, "How can we credit HighBeam for these truly wonderful toys? A template on the talk page? Would a link to an abstract behind a paywall (similar to linking to Google books, which I believe I firmly Opposed, but was shouted down by the hoi polloi, humph) be acceptable? And so on.".. Tea and crumpets on the house. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed a similar discussion over here. Nageh (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations. I am always very pressed for time, but at very first glance, those examples seem to need a little beefing up before they could be considered kosher. Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • None of those samples jive with the way medical citations are done (see my example above). PMIDs lead to abstracts, DOIs lead to abstracts, we don't link URLs unless they are full text. So, I would do something like add a parameter that is similar to PMID or DOI, with a link to the HighBeam abstract URL. But I wouldn't link the article to the URL, because we only link full-text, no subscription, in medical articles-- it's our custom. We link abstracts elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I suppose really the whole point of this exercise is to drive traffic to HighBeam. They ARE graciously giving us access to their resources, but they probably do expect to get something in return. I think WP:CITE#Links to sources may be most relevant here. Subscription only sites don't appear to be necessary to be linked to nor does it appear that we are required to state that we got it from HighBeam. I do agree that to split the difference, we could possibly put in a HighBeam parameter to link to the articles like DOI, PMID, etc. That discussion should probably take place at the Cite templates talk pages as well. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(At no one in particular.) Without regard to "crediting" HighBeam, it's generally useful to indicate when an originally non-electronic work has been accessed via a database, more so when you aren't able to view a faithful scan as you can with JSTOR. I'd say it's especially important with HighBeam, because in the handful of articles I viewed, not one was free of what I assume are OCR glitches. Some of the glitches were significant, by which I mean that it was not possible to deduce what the text should have been. (One would certainly want to think twice before citing technical articles in which such errors wouldn't be noticeable. Number changes and so forth. It's possible that the original publisher or some other supplier, and not HighBeam, is the source of the errors.) Thus the mention of the electronic publisher, not so much as a credit but as a disclaimer. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Very good point. Perhaps an "Accessed via HighBeam" parameter in the citations? Risker (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of providing original citation information is not to promote HighBeam, but to protect readers from being directed to a paywall with no ability to search for the source elsewhere themselves. That is why a bare link to a HighBeam article would never be sufficient. Instead, editors can link to HighBeam (for example in the url= field), but they would still provide the full details of the reference (author, publisher, etc.). That would let a reader easily look up the information to see if they can access it freely themselves. There's no requirement to add a 'via HighBeam' note in the publisher field. Including 'via HighBeam' would just be a courtesy to readers, and also a small bonus to HighBeam, but it's not a requirement. What is required is to include "(subscription required)" somewhere in the citation, so readers know they're going to a paywalled site. Hope that explains the motivation and details a bit better. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 13:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It explains something but it still doesn't answer the question or resolve the problem. We don't link URLs to abstracts on medical articles; we reserve that for free full text, and we link abstracts via other parameters (DOI, PMID, etc). We don't direct our readers via the URL to stuff behind paywalls. How to resolve? We need a highbeam parameter in the citation templates, I guess ??? I don't know-- my question still isn't resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's say there's a journal article, a full version of which is available on HighBeam. Maybe there's also an abstract on SSRI. My suggestion is that we provide all of the citations details, but link to HighBeam, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, because that is where an editor actually read the source. In addition, a (subscription required) note is appropriate. It is preferable to link the url to HighBeam over SSRI for a few reasons: one, HighBeam offers a free trial which readers could take advantage of. Two, HighBeam accounts are available for editors through this project. Three, HighBeam is no more expensive and probably less expensive than purchasing an individual article through SSRI (if that's even possible). There is the argument that we should link to SSRI over HighBeam, because some readers will have access to SSRI through a university or library, but not HighBeam. In that case it's just a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I think we should resolve it by linking to the place that the editor actually read the full text. That said, I see no problem in providing a link to HighBeam as well as a link to SSRI in the citation, as that gives readers even more options. In any case, providing full 'original' citation information allows a reader to search for the document in the database or site of their choosing. Hope that helps, otherwise I'm not exactly sure what the question/objection is. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Reboot, what is SSRI? In medical editing, it's a Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. I guess I'm not explaining myself, I thought my examples covered it, but I do not want to use the URL field in a citation template to link to an abstact-- we don't do that in medical articles, we link to info behind paywalls in other parameters and we use the URL field to link to full free text. I believe I'm saying we need a highbeam parameter in the citation templates. I guess I'm a dork, but the convention in medical articles (via the Diberri format), which makes sense, is that if you click on the article title, you are taken to free full text. If you click on the PMID or DOI parameters, you are taken to an abstract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant SSRN (obviously I need to cut back on the sertraline). What to do in a situation where there is no full free text, and the choices is either a paywalled site like JSTOR or a paywalled site like HighBeam? Otherwise, I don't particularly care how these citations are formatted as long as people can find what they are looking for and if editors accurately include where they got the information from. Ocaasi t | c 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with medical citation forms, but in the absence of a specific HighBeam parameter in the template, could it suffice to fill out the template as you usually do, and then after the template, but still within the footnote, add a comment along the lines of
Copy available [URL here] from [[HighBeam Research]] (subscription required).
Just a possibility--I handled a recent non-medical HighBeam source this way.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it looks like the best option so far. So the result would be:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
So, a non-medical citation might be:
  • Coles, Colleen A. (2001-08-12), "Travel notes; Chicago's Grant Park music festival wrapping up.", Star Tribune, The Star Tribune Company {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Copy available [1] via HighBeam Research, retreived 2012-04-19. (subscription required)
rather than:
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. I think it's silly to move useful information that could be presented at least as well inside the template to the outside simply because its behind a paywall. In addition to taking more space (more characters) to give the same information, it also defeats the purpose of having citation templates. Further, in this case, since HighBeam doesn't (at least in this case) provide the original newpaper page number, I think the URL is necessary for this to be a complete citation. If you feel strongly that links that go behind a paywall should be presented differently, perhaps you can add (or find another editor to add) parameters to the templates to accomodate this different presentation? cmadler (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Love the account! It looks a bit like gold digging. I have to admit that the search engine is a bit edgy, but the proceeds paid the (time) investment! Night of the Big Wind talk 18:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Round 5 - Number of Accounts Available??

The watchlist notification states that there are: "250 HighBeam Research 1-year accounts available."

The application page states: "Because they do not have a strict limit on the number of free accounts they are willing to give us (they've initially authorized 1000), there is unlikely to be a problem of too many editors trying to get too few accounts."

Can anybody confirm definitively whether 250 or 1000 accounts are on offer in this round of applications? I've not been too active over the past few years but aim to get back to some content creation again. However, I wouldn't want to deny an account to somebody more active if there are only 250 accounts available. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a HighBeam article".

Right. In the SEO world, this is called a Link swap. What next, "sponsored articles"? I would strongly discourage editors from linking to Highbeam's site. Use a free source if at all possible. --John Nagle (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:PROMO states that Wikipedia uses nofollow for all external links, so there will be no SEO benefit to HighBeam. Right? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
That's correct JT. All references use nofollow, as I have read about it. HighBeam, et al. get people clicking on those links and visiting their site and seeing their resource used, but there is no SEO benefit.
John, I think the context here is no different than when we use New York Times as a reference. They get the same 'benefits' from us doing so. There are paywalled sites and non-paywalled sites, but there are very few actually "free" sources, as in sources that aren't for-profit on some level. I do agree that non-paywalled sources are best where available. That's the reason editors who use HighBeam should always supply the original citation information to the underlying article so that readers can at least search for it on their own and attempt to find a free version. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we don't have any ideal choices here but using a paywalled site is better than having no site at all. Please let me know what you think about that. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 11:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally I don't like linking to Highbeam in the references, I link to the original article on Highbeam but I don't give a wikilink to their article. Why is giving a wikilink encouraged? Albacore (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

round six status update?

Any idea if/when round six accounts will be distributed? Thanks - and thanks for making this possible. Tvoz/talk 19:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

$50 a year special?

Can't some sales person at WikiFoundation talk them into giving editors with say 10,000 plus edits access for say $50 a year? I think a lot of us would be willing to pay something like that... CarolMooreDC 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

previously active but now inactive

Hi - I'm listed under round 7 but I noticed it's header with "(you haven't had one yet)" - I don't know if it matters but I did have one and it aged out. --Smkolins (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Account code e-mailed?

Hey, I'm really looking forward to putting this to good use and truly appreciate the opportunity! Am I (and others under "approved") supposed to have received an e-mail with an account code by now?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Not yet. They just closed the application period yesterday (actually, today, I see). If you could re-read the Applications page, please; it states that codes or whatever will be emailed by April 16th. It probably takes some time to coordinate everything with HighBeam. Please be patient. I'm sure they'll get it to us as soon as possible. If you haven't got it after the 16th, then I'd start wondering. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
ahhh thanks!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo Email

Yahoo email is reportedly lagging a few hours today. That is happening to my personal account which my wiki email is sent, my business email account, and a few friends accounts so I recommend editors with Yahoo mail to wait a couple of hours for the HighBeam email to arrive. Thanks Secret account 22:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I had to pull the email out of the Yahoo spam folder - so if you haven't got it, look there first. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I received the email, thank you for setting up this partnership

Everything is in the subject. WikiThx yours. Xavxav (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Did not receive code despite being approved?

I may be out of it, but as far as I know I never got my code? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I had forgot to activate my email, can't I get it now? --sicaspi (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — madman 19:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This

This is very cool. You might send an email to the research mailing list when you're done organizing this, for their information. – SJ + 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for those who participates in project administration help

Hello. I've been noticing Ocassie's (Sorry I dont know the name) hard work in this field. And lots others. Should we not award them with a barnstar? They definitely need to get reward for their hard work :-) Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 11:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Anonymity

Will it be possible to sign up without revealing real name, credit card numbers or other identifying information which might potentially lead to outing? Edison (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

See here. AFAICT the answer is no. SmartSE (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I asked that very question here, and apparently identifying information is not required. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That's what I linked to! SmartSE (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What information is needed

This sounds as if it could be both interesting and useful. I'm just curious as to what personal information (if any) I would need to provide to Highbeam as part of this scheme? —WFC— 18:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

See this.--JayJasper (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Types of applications

I think there should be two (of more) classes of applications: 1. need, 2. would like. Obviously the "need" would be filled before the "would like". Personally I would fall into the "would like" group as my time writing here is limited and someone who is active in sourcing will benefit the project more. Agathoclea (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Another idea may be to have only the 'needs' put their bids in on the first days, and then open it up to the "would likes". I would like to be in a third category: "Please don't accidently include me, and then blame it on computer error".--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

So is this going ahead?

Is this going ahead, then? I don't see any accounts being approved... Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prioryman any updates? Secret account 04:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check the application page, it says that applications officially start on April 2nd and run until April 9th. Accounts will be distributed by April 16th. Everything is good to go! I have the account activation codes and just need to wait and see how many we'll have to email out. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference tool?

If people are going to be adding a lot more references to highbeam soon, might someone be able to make a tool similar to https://reftag.appspot.com/ to work with their URLs? I've got no idea if it possible or how to do it, but if it can be done it would certainly save a lot of time! Alternatively {{cite highbeam}} modelled on {{cite doi}} could be made and followed by user:citation bot. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is whether we should link to a source that is not open to everyone with a template of its own? When I link to Credo reference I just use cite web.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
That's not much of a problem - few people can access the articles linked from {{cite doi}}. It's not the links that are important anyway, but the bibliographical information, which highbeam presumably have on a database, that they might let a tool access, rather than us having to do everything by hand. SmartSE (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be great if something could be done in this regard. HighBeam seems to have pre-formatted citations on each article for MLA, APA, and Chicago style...it would be really nice to have a WP cite template as easily! cmadler (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey!

WikiProject Mathematics

In this edit I posted the promotional notice to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, but phrased it a bit more like a neutral comment than a promotional notice.

All other WikiProjects seem very sleepy compared to that one, as far as I can tell. On many WikiProjects, you can often post a comment and get a reply only a day or two later or maybe a week or a month later. On that one, you don't usually wait so long. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Metrics

Wikipedia:HighBeam/Metrics uses the standard search feature to find mentions of highbeam. Special:LinkSearch is a better tool - [2]. SmartSE (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
LinkSearch showed 16,721 links to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1 a few minutes ago.  —SMALLJIM  09:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Can we get that number for 20 March? Perhaps someone with Toolserver access could do a retrospective search? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't help with that, I'm afraid, but the count is now 17,139.  —SMALLJIM  14:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Check this reference

I have added the following text & reference to an article. Can someone more experienced with Highbeam please check the formatting of the reference? Thanks.

Thyroid gland tissue was transplanted in 1882 by Theodor Kocher.[1]

  1. ^ Epstein, M (2011-10-01). "The Origins of Organ Transplantation: Surgery and Laboratory Science, 1880-1930". Medical History. via HighBeam Research. Retrieved 2012-06-11. (subscription required)

Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

I made a template, {{HighBeam}}, which renders as:

– via HighBeam Research, (subscription required)

(without the indentation, added here for clarity). This can be used in references, inside or outside citation templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The template has been nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Now replaced by {{subscription required|via=[[HighBeam Research]]}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A splendidly stupid outcome, replacing a short template with a longer and more complex one, while at the same time removing the specific tracking capabilities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

activation code?

Where does the activation code come from? I got the notice on my talk page, and I registered with email and password. The next page asked for my activation code. I checked my email , and it was not there. Where should it be? BollyJeff | talk 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The code should have been emailed to you already. I will email it again just in case. If you don't get it for some reason, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and I will keep trying. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 11:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If an expected email does not arrive, remember to check your spam (aka junk email) folder. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No Reuters or AFP?

I just started using it today, so this might not be a full experience. I started by searching for "Bahrain protests" and looked for the most recent reports. While very helpful in reducing research effort, I noticed that reports by AFP and Reuters are not included in the search. I was going to post this in experiences, but though I'd like to hear some feedback and discussion about this. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Need material

I am confused as to where the notice board is no I will post here. I would like to see and article from the Edmonton Journal, May 13, 2012, Section C, pages C5-C6 and possibly a note one C1. This is for article John Weaver (artist).--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Canoe! The best place to post your request would be WP:RX. There should now be several regulars there with HighBeam access. If that falls through just shoot me an email <redacted so bots don't find it easily> and I'll send you the link. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

Resolved

I'd like to ask if someone who has Highbeam access could let me know what the full content of this link says as I might be able to use some of the info that's not shown? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enable your e-mail option (from your preferences). I can send you the article. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I had the same confusion a the section above. Should we put a link to WP:RX at the top of these pages with a note about having email turned on? The email note may be handy at RX as well if it isn't there already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be handy. — Bill william comptonTalk 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Expired

It seems that my account, which is a year old, has expired. Are there any plans to extend subscriptions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

{{User HighBeam former}} is available, if anyone's interested. -- Trevj (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Come and join The Wikipedia Library

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam error

I asked about this article a while ago (early April?) at WP:RX and one user responded that they couldn't access it. I am just wondering if access is available now. I think it may start at page 23, written by Brie Childers. My email is on and thanks in advance. I added it back to the queue again on May 8 at RX.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Late followup: Business Highbeam (business.highbeam.com) is not included in our free general research accounts at Highbeam. Since the article you seek is from the Jan 1 2005 Playboy, you may be able to access that article through other means. In the meantime, some Wikipedia editors might have access to the Business area. Any list of such users, User:Ocaasi? --Lexein (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests?

Is there a place to request for people with a HighBeam account to add information to articles? I was working with another editor whose free account literally expired yesterday, and he did not get the chance to do a couple of final lookups for me. In this case, is there anything that could be added to User:BOZ/John Zeleznik [3], or User:BOZ/Nene Thomas [4]? BOZ (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, that would be an {{Edit request}} with explanatory text calling for a Highbeam user to make the edit. --Lexein (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
BOZ, and Lexein, there are 1,000 more 1 year accounts available, so if you or anyone else wants one, just sign up in the latest round. I'll get them out a.s.a.p. Jake Ocaasi t | c 00:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, also, most editors who requested Highbeam re-ups have gotten them recently, including me , thanks. --Lexein (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)

The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

  • Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
  • Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
  • New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
  • Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
  • Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
  • Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 12:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Lost my subscription?

Hi, I think I lost my subscription to HighBeam, which I have loved and used quite a bit. If so, is there something I can do to get it back again?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Carole, to clarify, did you lose the password associated with the account, or did the account expire? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I can log on, but I can only see part of the article. It says "To read the full text of this article and others like it, try us out for 7 days, FREE!"--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like it's expired. I'll send you a new code within the next day or two. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with HB registration

Hi! First and foremost I would like to thanks for giving me the opportunity to subscribe to this service. Unfortunately, I lost my access to HB because apparently I've used this email for its free subscription four years ago when I was still an undergraduate. I must have overlooked that fact since I've been using the same email for Wiki and for other stuff for the past 6-7 years, and I have lost tracked with many of the sites that I've registered with this email. ==" Is it possible for me to gain access to HB again? I'm willing to create and use different email for that. :) Thank you. SyFuelIgniteBurned 07:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Syfuel, were you able to register initially and then later lost access - in other words, did you actually enter your access code anywhere, or could you not get to that point? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I did register the code with the same email I'm using for my Wikipedia account. I was able to log in to the system succesfully, where I was able to view complete articles. But when I try to log in after I logged out earlier, it brings me straight to the part where it says "To get full access to HighBeam Research, simply complete the registration process." SyFuelIgniteBurned 07:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Is that the entire error message? If you hit the "forgot login" button, can you get an email sent to you, or does it not recognize your email as being registered? I hate to ask, but just in case: are you certain you're entering your login information correctly? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
When I first clicked on the link (I think the message that was given to me was different than today’s), it brings me straight to the page where I have to submit my credit card information as my 7-day trial has long expired (circa 2010). Today, when I clicked on the link (with the message: To get full access to HighBeam Research, simply complete the registration process.) it brings me straight back to the second page of the registration where I have to keyed in the activation code. The one time only code works for my first time registration, but not again this time. I think I have keyed in all the information correctly since I was able to browse its articles right after the completion of the registration with the activation code that I had received. It might have to do with the fact that I’ve used its free trial four years ago, and the system got messed up when I keyed in the activation code. SyFuelIgniteBurned 14:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Please send me an email using an address that you've never used for HighBeam. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! <3 Can I send it to you tomorrow? I’m stuck without a permanent Internet connection for the time being. I’m typing this over an Internet connection on a phone. The last thing I want is a messed up registration all over again if my yesterday fiasco of accidentally removing all of the previous messages in this page is an indication. I’ll let you know you here once I’ve emailed my other e-mail. I assume I send it to your email that you used to send the activation code? Again, thank you so much. <3 SyFuelIgniteBurned 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, same email, whenever you get the chance. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've emailed you my link to my other email. Thanks! SyFuelIgniteBurned 10:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I signed up for access and then did almost nothing with it for the first year. Felt guilty, but re-upped, and now it is part of my standard routine, especially when looking to improve AfD candidates. Adding the extra bit to refs to identify it as Highbeam-sourced is simple and easy. Thanks to Highbeam for making this resource available. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

HighBeam account share?

Hi all, I was just wondering if it is allowed to share a HighBeam account with other Wikipedians? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anupmehra, unfortunately that's not something allowed under HighBeam's terms of use. However, we do have plenty of accounts available at this point, so I would encourage anyone eligible to apply for their own access. For those who aren't eligible yet, the Resource Exchange is an alternative method of access. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Formatting cites

I see that Andy Mabbett created a template a couple years ago to help with formatting references. Any newer scripts/gadgets out there to format references the way HighBeam wants them done? --NeilN talk to me 20:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

How does Highbeam want them done? I always use the "|via=[[HighBeam Research|HighBeam]]" parameter in the {{cite}}/{tl|citation}} template. Is that not sufficient? Eric Corbett 21:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I use the cite tool accessed from the wiki-editor toolbar and if I'm lucky, it does a decent job of grabbing of grabbing the article title and the publisher after I enter a URL. Plugging in a HighBeam URL gives poorer results. I was hoping that there was a tool out there that could access the metadata and fill in even more of the fields. --NeilN talk to me 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's a different question altogether. Eric Corbett 21:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I know some of the citation tools have trouble with registration-/subscription-required sources; I don't know of one that deals with them well. Where you're citing a book or journal accessed through HighBeam the cite tool's ISBN and DOI autocomplete does work, but for magazines and newspapers I unfortunately don't have an alternative suggestion, although someone else might. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I've built a tool which contains a simple browser and generates nicely formatted references from HighBeam magazine and newspaper articles. Examples here. It requires .NET Framework 4.5 so Windows machines only (sorry!). I will send the executable and source code upon request. HighBeam's meta tags are used to generate the refs and the tags aren't always consistent so the application may fail on certain pages. Nikkimaria, the application is basically a customized browser and users still need to log into their account. I cannot see how this would violate any of HighBeam's terms and conditions, can you? --NeilN talk to me 23:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that sounds great! Thank you, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lost access to Highbeam?

Hi! I renewed my access to Highbeam earlier this year (via Round 7), activated it, and was able to immediately start using it. But recently, when I've tried to login, it tells me to complete my registration. When I click this link, it brings me to a pay menu. Has this been an issue with anyone else? I thought I had access through next year? And what do I need to do to fix this? I haven't changed anything about my account (same email, etc.). Thanks in advance for any help! Ruby 2010/2013 03:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ruby, Round 7 was September 2013 and access only lasts one year, so yours has quite likely expired. Not to worry, though, we've plenty of access codes left so you can just apply for renewal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I thought I had already reapplied and had my account approved this year! I must have mixed Highbeam up with another service. I will add my name to the list now. Thanks for helping! Ruby 2010/2013 03:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How to determine whether one's local library offers access?

I would like to sign up for an account through this service, but the Requirements section states that I can only do so if my local library doesn't already offer access to HighBeam. How do I determine whether my library offers access or not? Will I find this information on the HighBeam website? My library's website? I remember trying to access old issues of a magazine through my library's website before, and although I'm pretty sure that my library did indeed offer this magazine, I could never figure out how to access it. I've also tried to use EBSCOhost through my library, and the whole thing was incredibly confusing. So I'm a little apprehensive about trying to figure out HighBeam. Could somebody help me out? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jpcase, most often libraries will have a page somewhere on their website listing what databases or services they subscribe to. Some will also offer support services for using research databases. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. So is this - [5] - the page that I would want to look at? Nothing on the right hand side really seems to describe HighBeam, as there isn't any sort of "research database" section. Should I take this to mean that my library doesn't subscribe to HighBeam or am I looking in the wrong place? --Jpcase (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any mention of HighBeam on that page's links or elsewhere on the site, although you could contact the library to be sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How to (re-)register?

Maybe i'm just blind right now, but I'm having trouble to (re-)register. If I log in with my old account, I only see the regular registration with 7 trial days and no field to enter the code just my credit card number. If I log out and act as new user I also just get a the regular registration with 7 free trail days track just that I have to create an account in addition.

So what screen/registration form am I supposed to see and use and where do I enter the code?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kmhkmh, if you start here, are you able to complete the form to get to this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked, I overlooked that the link on the support page wasn't the default highbeam research website.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT

Hi there. I have a minor comment. In the project page here, it mistakenly says we need to include HighBeam in the citation, citing the guideline WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. "Editors should always provide original citation information, in addition to linking a HighBeam article, per WP:V and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT" The guideline actually correctly says not to do that, as the means are totally various and irrelevant.

And here's a question. This page says there could be some reason to list HighBeam as the publisher. How could that possibly happen? I haven't used HighBeam so I didn't know if they actually publish anything, or if they just deliver it (like youtube or google). Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 06:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The intention of the SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT line is to remind editors to provide the details of the original citation rather than just linking to HighBeam - this seems to be consistent with the guideline. As for listing HighBeam as the publisher, we usually do that for YouTube as well for videos they host. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Hi. I understand what you mean about the intention, which is good; and it says a lot more than that, which is false. HighBeam and YouTube aren't the publishers; they're just the deliverer or vendor, like a book store. And HighBeam is one of many. At most, they'd get the "via" parameter, which they still only deserve if that's the exclusive vendor—for content made for YouTube, as is the case with many "youtubers". Otherwise, that would be implying that MTV or Nintendo or Time or Forbes or you and I aren't publishers just because we delivered via YouTube or HighBeam, and that YouTube isn't a self-publishing or crowdsourced medium. Otherwise it'd be akin to arbitrarily promoting a particular online archiver like HighBeam or BSC. Archiving and vending aren't publishing. We can't have multiple "via" and "publisher" entries, so it'd be one person implying "you need to buy this institutional subscription". And as I said, the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT correctly says not to do any of this. This Wikipedia:HighBeam document is incorrectly directing people to add the explicitly false "publisher=HighBeam" and the definitely needless "via=HighBeam", while citing WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT which tells us not to do that. So the document needs to be fixed. I'm just gathering consensus first. :) — Smuckola(talk) 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm a bit confused - I'm not seeing "publisher=HighBeam" in the example, and "via=HighBeam" appears to be correct according to the template documentation (and your explanation - HighBeam as the content deliverer). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I'm sorry, I misspoke on the location of the statement about "publisher=HighBeam". It's at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations. But as for "via=HighBeam", no it's clearly and explicitly incorrect according to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and to my explanation. I would quote , but it's so perfectly clear, short, and concise that I'd simply be copying the whole thing verbatim, as well as what I just said. Furthermore, it violates Wikipedia:HighBeam/Plan#What_it.27s_not, "A formal endorsement of HighBeam over other similar and competing research services", in that it is a formal instruction for each user to explicitly endorse the arbitrary services of HighBeam amongst a market of competitive equivalents. So the endorsement is inherited. So no I'm really sorry to have to say it, and I don't mean to be contrary or rude (I feel badly), but it's just all wrong. — Smuckola(talk) 17:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree it's wrong to attribute a content provider in a citation that links to that provider (any more than it's wrong to link to the source, period). I'm also quite familiar with our general citation practices (I do a lot of source reviewing at WP:FAC), so I'm fairly confident in saying that this sort of use of the via parameter is widespread and accepted. Let's see whether anyone else wants to weigh in on the issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Okay but with all due respect for your extensive work, now you're implicitly shutting down the entire concept of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT without even having acknowledged it, because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beside that, the use of 'via' is extra needless, because it's redundant to the domain name in the URL itself. Are you sure you suddenly understood everything I said and that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT said, after having not understood it this whole time? I'm sorry to bring this whole thing up. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 18:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe I have understood what you've said, but I do disagree with it. Guidelines are interpreted and applied by the community, and it is my opinion that the via usage displayed here is consistent with community consensus. However, I may be wrong, which is why I would like to see whether anyone else has an opinion on this. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Registering - "How will you use this site?" field

I'm unclear about how to answer the "How will you use this site" field when registering. I assume that I should select "Personal Use - General Interest or Hobby", since writing for Wikipedia isn't a "profession", but I wasn't sure whether I should select the "Journalism / Writing" option instead. Does it matter? --Jpcase (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, but "hobby" is probably closest. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

New reference tool

There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent HighBeam interface problem

In the last few days I've noted a recurring problem with the HighBeam interface: the first page of search results appear normally, but if I try to (i) reorder them in date order rather than relevance, (ii) change the number of results appearing on the page, or (iii) get to the next page of results, the interface will then tell me there are no results. I find HighBeam to be very valuable in finding focused news sources on many topics on Wikipedia, so I'm hopeful of finding a solution. Is anyone else running into a similar problem? --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Arxiloxos, it appears to be working as expected for me in all three cases. Does this happen with every search or only in certain circumstances? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem seems to occur whenever the search string includes an exact phrase: the first page of the search looks normal but on any further pages, the search engine seems to get confused, perhaps due to the presence of "&quot" on either side of the exact phrase. I've tried to find a way to avoid the appearance of "&quot" on those pages but it keeps popping up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No Place to Input Activation Code

I've gone through the registration process but no where does it give me an option to input the code and requires me to choose a paid subscription plan with credit card information. Did I miss something?? Ormr2014 | Talk  15:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ormr, is this the registration page you're using? Have you ever had a Questia account or a free trial under the same email address? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria That's the same page and no I've never even had a free account with any of these research places. Questia I've never even heard of before today. Ormr2014 | Talk  16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. If possible, I'd suggest you try registering using a different email address. If that's not possible, try contacting HighBeam directly to see if they can sort out what's going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I guess I'll have to contact them because I tried using three separate email accounts, the last one I just created for this purpose and the same thing each time. Ormr2014 | Talk  16:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
All's good. I contacted them and they set up the account for me. Thanks. Ormr2014 | Talk  19:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • http://www.highbeam.com/prof1 does not work if you are already signed in to HighBeam with an existing account (trial or expired). If you visit the main page and log out first, the above link will work but you'll need to create a new account and use a different e-mail account to activate your subscription. Wouldn't it be better if we renewed our existing subscriptions? ~Kvng (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Kvng, I believe it is possible to renew with the same email address (just with a different password), but I know several users have reported problems with this - Jake or I will follow up with our contact at HighBeam. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: any update on this or should I just start fresh with a new email address? ~Kvng (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Kvng, I've pointed our contact to this conversation and am awaiting a reply. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Kvng and anyone else interested: if you'd like to renew with the same email address, you can contact Luis.Pedraza at cengage.com. Provide your registration details and state that you were approved through TWL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria (and Luis). All good now. ~Kvng (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm having the same problems, trying to renew with my same email address. What are the "registration details" that I need to provide to Luis? Name, email, and what else? Softlavender (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: you'll also need the activation code I sent you. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks. Perhaps in the future, all of this info can be put in the email notifcation when someone requests a renewal. That would be very helpful, especially since we shouldn't have to change emails just to renew. Thanks .... Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Madeline 1st and 2nd Grade Math

Hello Highbeamers!! Can anyone please give me access to these sources??--Coin945 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Coin945, please enable your email so that I can help you further on this. Cerevisae (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam

To make this category more useful I propose to add an expiry parameter to {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Topicon}} and {{Wikipedia:HighBeam/Userbox}} so that only editors with an active subscription populate the category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In order to do this accurately, would it be possible to obtain a list of Wikipedians who currently have access to HighBeam? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Unfortunately I think we only have total lists; the expiry is all handled on HighBeam's end. I'm not sure there's an easy way for us to figure out whose access has expired, but I agree the category would be more useful if they were removed from it. Sam Walton (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I may add expiry dates for people who have recently been granted access recently (per Wikipedia:HighBeam/Approved) and then change the template so only these people populate the category. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done I have added expiry dates to all users who have current access. The remainder will populate Category:Wikipedians who previously had access to HighBeam — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cerevisae and Nikkimaria: any chance we could keep Wikipedia:HighBeam/Approved for editors who have current access? I.e. could you remove users once their HighBeam accounts expire? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I am only responsible for giving out the activation codes to users. However, I don't know exactly the date they activated their account or if they ever activated their HighBeam account at all. Therefore, it is quite difficult for me to compute their expiry dates. Cerevisae (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. Okay, so we'll have you rely on users self-categorising themselves. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: Is there any way that I can categorise a list of users automatically using a bot? Cerevisae (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Carmen Sandiego's Great Chase Through Time

Hi! Please can I have access to the following sites?--Coin945 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Subscription length

How long do subscriptions under this program last before they expire? According to my records, my subscription started on 14 September 2015, and I would like to know whether I should apply for renewal in advance if it is a one-year-at-a-time thing. Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Search term censorship?

I edit the article Nude (art). Entering the word "nude" for a search term in Highbeam, it is simply deleted. Curious, I tried sex, and then breast; with same result: no results. The latter prevents research on the topic "breast cancer", which is chanced to "cancer". Is this a default "safe search" which can be turned off? I put this question into the site's Customer Service form, with no response. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Hmm, interesting, I see the same thing. How long ago did you contact them? Sam Walton (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Just a week ago. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested to hear what they say if you get a response. If they don't get back to you soon I'm happy to send an email to our contact at HighBeam to ask. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am noticing similar, and somewhat peculiar restrictions. For example, the word "drug" seems to be rejected as a search term, so I have been unable to use the service to find sources about drug courts and about drug treatments for specific diseases. Very odd. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC: Did you receive a response from your email? If not I'm happy to get in contact with them to understand if there's a way around this. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said initially, there was no response from Customer Service, the only contact link on the site.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@WriterArtistDC: I've sent our contact at Highbeam an email to see if we can find a way around this. Will let you know when I hear back. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC and Arxiloxos: So I've been told that this is due to the advertising Highbeam uses on their website (Google AdSense); a requirement of the ads they run is that "offensive" terms are filtered. I'm trying to see if there's a way around this. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

None of the words I tried to use are offensive. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought is was just sexual terms, but the n-word and its variants are also not allowed. However, several racial epithets for other groups were allowed. The word "gay" is also not allowed, which means not being able to research gay marriage. The policy is not only nonsense, but biased.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well as I understood it, it isn't really an explicitly policy of Highbeam as such but an unintended consequence of using google ads. Fixing it might require a slight redesign for their online interface and i'm doubtful that Highbeam will do that just for Wikipedians. They may need some demand from their customer base to be willing to address this. But those technical issues aside, the current result is indeed a problem, desired legitimate researches can't be performed, which reduces the usefulness of Highbeam significantly. A partial workaround for now might be to do the search on Google directly and then look up the publication directly on Highbeam, though the overlap between their search space and Google might not be that big.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that many words I would struggle to define as offensive are unfortunately filtered here; you should really be able to research these topics. Kmhkmh makes a good point though: as a workaround you can search Highbeam via Google using the format "[search term] site:highbeam.com" - Nude Art, for example. I appreciate this isn't ideal, and we're talking to Highbeam about whether this can be improved. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@WriterArtistDC, Arxiloxos, and Kmhkmh: So there is a way around this when you're on Highbeam's site, sort of. Here's the method, using the example of Nude Art:

Hope that helps; I'll see about getting this information emailed to all current users. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the filter is not just for WP. The word "sexual" is also banned, which means anyone doing research on sexual assault or sexual harassment cannot target their topic unless they know how to hack the url.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
So I tried that workaround for "breast cancer" and it worked only for the first page of results: as soon as I tried to go to another page of results, or to reorder the search in date order rather than relevance, it went back to the bowdlerization.
I did find a possible workaround for some phrase searches using hyphens, rather than quotes: it appears that while I can't search multiple pages of "nude art" or "breast cancer", I can search nude-art and breast-cancer, and even (to quote Cary Grant's famous line from Bringing Up Baby) gay-all-of-a-sudden. We'll see how this works out in practice.
I hope they will do something about this because, as others have noted, many of these exclusions would be very puzzling for paying customers trying to use a research service; we're not talking about wanton use of the F word here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to review article for Steve Whitney

Hello Highbeamers,

I am reviewing the sources at Steve Whitney, and would like somebody to take a look at https://business.highbeam.com/2012/article-1G1-55373713/carol-bodie-inks-exrep-whitney for me. It is from the Hollywood Reporter but there isn't enough there for me to determine:

  1. Is this a press release, or press release rehash
  2. Is the coverage actually significant or simply an announcement of an executive hiring

Assistance would be appreciated -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll repost there. Please consider this request closed here. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

no quotes for userbox

Hey SoWhy, your activation mail says to do {{...|granted="write your name here"}} for the userbox. But if you use quotes it causes broken characters in the page. You can see the expression errors in this edit. tedder (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tedder: That's the form letter they gave me. The "" should be omitted of course and serve only to make it clear that people should replace that part. I'll clarify the form letter. Regards SoWhy 06:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I figured it out, but I thought it might help in the future. tedder (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this still active?

I sent an e-mail to Luis Pedraza a few days ago, requesting a renewal of my HighBeam account and haven't heard anything back yet. I'm not sure how long it usually takes, and I don't mind waiting, but I just realized that the instructions on how to renew your account were removed from this page a couple of months ago - the edit summary merely said "upd", which doesn't really tell me anything, haha. And I see that an even larger amount of content was removed from the page in a December 2017 edit - the summary for that edit said just said "arc", and I'm not sure what "arc" means.

Is it still possible to renew my account, or has HighBeam ended its partnership with Wikipedia? --Jpcase (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jpcase: Unfortunately we are no longer able to renew access or take new applications for for Highbeam. When we've received some clarification on their situation we'll send out an email to users with access to Highbeam with relevant details. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to renew as well (I expired in the fall of 2017). Is there some way I can be notified as well when we find out what is going on? Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. This has been really useful in the past and I've created tons of articles with HighBeam cites. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:HighBeam/Archive_1&oldid=1086815486"