2,313 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2016
    1. networked discovery of connections would be at the center of both the learning environment as designed by faculty and the learning environment as experienced by students

      Would love to hear Campbell or Kuh elaborate on this. Identifying "connections" as more important than identifying content/information? A new way for searching the Internet? Mining connections among content/people? Mining the connections I've made among content/people on the Internet?

    1. “While we have the ‘must do’ layer, there’s also that little bit of subversion here, giving kids that little bit of creativity and maybe a ray of hope,” Reisinger said. “I want them to learn that learning is not all about what someone else preordains for you. It’s OK to tinker and play with things.”

      Refreshing! Self-directed learning. Agency. Almost smells like open pedagogy!

  2. Mar 2016
    1. Imagine having at least part of your virtual learning environment (VLE) open, not just for current students (and even current students usually can't see all the teaching that might be useful to them) but for non-students, prospective students, or staff members who want to know what's happening down the road, across the country, in that academic department that interests them. NetworkED 2020 Watch Donna at NetworkED 2020: The London University, as she asks 'what if all of London were a networked University?'There would be so much potential for seeing the different ways in which departments are teaching, for instance. Which departments of biology are doing what in their labs? What theoretical approaches are they taking?

      This to me is more transparent than open where the world outside can see,

      In this context open to me is more about connecting, communicating, learning together and from each other. it's people can walk in on their own or be invited in, people inside can go explore and visit others

      Important: Open to me is much more than that still. I remember the Vconnecting we had during OpenEd15 : No consensus on what "Open" means yet.

    1. The Open Stuff that I am interested in, is not just that anyone can walk through the door, as there are often ONLY IFs. They can walk through the door ONLY IF they create an account and login. They can walk through the door ONLY IF they are in certain parts of the world (geographic limits on media). Openness is not just a door.

      This is a crucial paragraph in this post ... many of us assume openness as a possibility for everyone but the world is complicated for many, and the "if" question -- and how to change the nature of the world to lower barriers -- is as crucial as designing something that has the possibilities of open.

    2. you do not always know who is there with what class, or on their own.

      I rarely even think about that idea of a "class of students is here" -- I just figure, this is my space and I am doing what I am doing, and enjoying what you re doing and so ... away we go ...

    1. open annotation.

      I'd like to hear discussion around the term "open" here. How exactly are you using it @remiholden? To mean public as opposed to private?

      For me, open has specific infrastructural connotations: it's about a variety of annotation clients like hypothes.is conforming to certain wider standards so that web annotation--like the web itself--is an interoperable system.

      But I'm curious the degree to which that matters to teachers and learners. And why? We're using hypothes.is, which promises to conform to standards being developed by the w3c, but could DIIGO do the trick even though they're system (for now) is closed?

    1. Alongside the Dutch government, which is using its presidency of the EU to push the case for open access, only Hungary, Romania, Sweden and the UK, share the view that academic publishers should stop charging readers a subscription and instead charge authors for publishing their papers.

      Could be worse.

    1. The peer-reviewed journal marks a new era in academic journal publishing. Discrete Analysis will follow the "diamond open access" model - free to read and free to publish in - and will be entirely editor-owned with no publisher middleman.

      diamond open access

    1. A framework for assessing fitness for purpose in open educational resources

      When does using OER make sense... This is a great framework, especially if we are talking about assessing the OER completely on its own. But that probably isn't reality. OER is meant to be used, as in a process rather than a finished product. That process, the purposeful integration of the interactions and connections between teachers, students, "content" and the "open" public should be the foundation for such a framework.

    2. The OER is used to devise interactive ways of using OER to promote students’ engagement in the problem-solving process.

      This is close. How about "promote students' engagement" with the OER itself? Student can annotate, edit, create, improve, expand the OER.

    3. Learners are engaged in solving real-world problems. Existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner. New knowledge is applied by the learner. New knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world.

      Not totally on board with this. Perhaps if "learner" role can be filled with student or instructor.

    4. 1) Providing open, accessible and quality content for a wider community of teachers and learners.  2) Sharing best practice and helping to avoid re-inventing the wheel.  3) Helping developing countries improve and expand learning for development opportunities.  4) Offering flexible non-formal and informal knowledge and skills accumulation pathways to formal study.  5) Providing learning opportunities for geographically, socially or economically excluded students and non-traditional and work-based learners.  6) Improving the quality of conventional and online education by achieving greater awareness of open and inclusive educational practices and varied perspectives on fields of study.  7) Enabling collaboration between institutions, sectors, disciplines and countries.

      I would have expected a more direct reference to serving students. Students being active participants, potentially creators of the content (knowledge) they are interacting with.

  3. Feb 2016
    1. The feed is how stuff enters their content system. But the feed itself is outside, leaving it available for other services to use. It's great when this happens, rather than doing it via a WG that tend to go on for years, and create stuff that's super-complicated, why not design something that works for you, put it out there with no restrictions and let whatever's going to happen happen.

      Interesting approach for hypothes.is to consider?

    1. As I have mentioned in previous posts, several platforms have appeared recently that could take on this role of third-party reviewer. I could imagine at least: libreapp.org, peerevaluation.org, pubpeer.com, and publons.com. Pandelis Perakakis mentioned several others as well: http://thomas.arildsen.org/2013/08/01/open-review-of-scientific-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-9.
    1. A coalition of some of the world’s key scholarly publishers, platforms, libraries, and technology organizations

      Important that academia is in this space. It's also important that annotations and connections can be open as this is how knowledge spreads and grows.

    1. What makes this more difficult to resolve is that GitHub is — surprise! — not open source. GitHub is closed source, meaning that only GitHub staff is able to make improvements to its platform.The irony of using a proprietary tool to manage open source projects, much like BitKeeper and Linux, has not been lost on everyone. Some developers refuse to put their code on GitHub to retain their independence. Linus Torvalds, the creator of Git himself, refuses to accept pull requests (code changes) from GitHub.

      That's why I have advocated tools like Fossil to other members of our Hackerspace and other communities like Pharo or decentralized options to Mozilla Science (without much acceptation in the communities or even any reaction from Mozilla Science).

      Going with the de facto and popular defaults (without caring about freedom or diversity) seems the position of open source/science communities and even digital activist, which contrast sharply with their discourse for the building of tools/data/politics, but seems invisible in the building of community/metadata/metapolitics.

      The kind of disempowerment these communities are trying to fight, is the one they're suffering with GitHub, like showed here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjLddpvTW_3w8LyrU-

      So there is a tension between the convenience and wider awareness/participation of centralized privative platforms that is wanted by these open/activist communities and a growth in the (over)use of the commons that is bigger that the growth of its sustainability/ethos, as shown here: https://hypothes.is/a/AVKjfsTRvTW_3w8LyrqI . Sacrificing growth/convenience by choosing simpler and more coherent infrastructures aligned with the commons and its ethos seems a sensible approach then.

    2. Technically, if you use someone else’s code revision from Stack Overflow, you would have to add a comment in your code that attributes the code to them. And then that person’s code would potentially have a different license from the rest of your code.Your average hobbyist developer might not care about the rules, but many companies forbid employees from using Stack Overflow, partly for this reason.As we enter a post open source world, Stack Overflow has explored transitioning to a more permissive MIT license, but the conversation hasn’t been easy. Questions like what happens to legacy code, and dual licensing for code and non-code contributions, have generated confusion and strong reactions.
    3. The free software generation had to think about licenses because they were taking a stance on what they were not (that is, proprietary software). The GitHub generation takes this right for granted. They don’t care about permissions. They default to open.Open source is so popular today that we don’t think of it as exceptional anymore. We’re so open source, that maybe we’re post open source:But not is all groovy in the land of post open source.
  4. Jan 2016
    1. Below I list a few advantages and drawbacks of anonymity where I assume that a drawback of anonymous review is an advantage of identified review and vice versa. Drawbacks Reviewers do not get credit for their work. They cannot, for example, reference particular reviews in their CVs as they can with publications. It is relatively “easy” for a reviewer to provide unnecessarily blunt or harsh critique. It is difficult to guess if the reviewer has any conflict of interest with the authors by being, for example, a competing researcher interested in stalling the paper’s publication. Advantages Reviewers do not have to fear “payback” for an unfavourable review that is perceived as unfair by the authors of the work. Some (perhaps especially “high-profile” senior faculty members) reviewers might find it difficult to find the time to provide as thorough a review as they would ideally like to, yet would still like to contribute and can perhaps provide valuable experienced insight. They can do so without putting their reputation on the line.
    1. With most journals, if I submit a paper that is rejected, that information is private and I can re-submit elsewhere. In open review, with a negative review one can publicly lose face as well as lose the possibility of re-submitting the paper. Won’t this be a significant disincentive to submit? This is precisely what we are trying to change. Currently, scientists can submit a paper numerous times, receive numerous negative reviews and ultimately publish their paper somewhere else after having “passed” peer review. If scientists prefer this system then science is in a dangerous place. By choosing this model, we as scientists are basically saying we prefer nice neat stories that no one will criticize. This is silly though because science, more often than not, is not neat and perfect. The Winnower believes that transparency in publishing is of the utmost importance. Going from a closed anonymous system to an open system will be hard for many scientists but I believe that it is the right thing to do if we care about the truth.
    1. While there are some features shared between a university repository and us we are distinctly different for the following reasons: We offer DOIs to all content published on The Winnower All content is automatically typeset on The Winnower Content published on the winnower is not restricted to one university but is published amongst work from peers at different institutions around the world Work is published from around the world it is more discoverable We offer Altmetrics to content  Our site is much more visually appealing than a typical repository  Work can be openly reviewed on The Winnower but often times not even commented on in repositories. This is not to say that repositories have no place, but that we should focus on offering authors choices not restricting them to products developed in house.

      Over this tension/complementary between in house and external publishing platforms I wonder where is the place for indie web self hosted publishing, like the one impulsed by grafoscopio.

      A reproducible structured interactive grafoscopio notebook is self contained in software and data and holds all its history by design. Will in-house solutions and open journals like The Winnower, RIO Journal or the Self Journal of Science, support such kinds of publishing artifacts?

      Technically there is not a big barrier (it's mostly about hosting fossil repositories, which is pretty easy, and adding a discoverability and author layer on top), but it seems that the only option now is going to big DVCS and data platforms now like GitHub or datahub alike for storing other research artifacts like software and data, so it is more about centralized-mostly instead of p2p-also. This other p2p alternatives seem outside the radar for most alternative Open Access and Open Science publishers now.

    1. open Science

      Die Auswirkungen des digitalen Wandels in der Forschung erforschr der Leibniz-Forschungsverbund Science 2.0. Die derzeit 37 Partner bearbeiten die Forschungsschwerpunkte „Neue Arbeitsgewohnheiten“, „Technologieentwicklung“ und „Nutzungsforschung“. Damit untrennbar verbunden sind die aktuellen Entwicklungen im Hinblick auf die Öffnung des gesamten Wissenschaftsprozesses oder Teilen davon („Open Science“)

      http://www.leibniz-science20.de/

    1. Green OA and the role of repositories remain controversial. This is perhaps less the case for institutional repositories, than for subject repositories, especially PubMed Central. The lack of its own independent sustainable business model means Green OA depends on its not undermining that of (subscription) journals. The evidence remains mixed: the PEER project found that availability of articles on the PEER open repository did not negatively impact downloads from the publishers’s site, but this was contrary to the experience of publishers with more substantial fractions of their journals’ content available on the longer-established and better-known arXiv and PubMed Central repositories. The PEER usage data study also provided further confirmation of the long usage half-life of journal articles and its substantial variation between fields (suggesting the importance of longer embargo periods than 6–12 months, especially for those fields with longer usage half-lives). Green proponents for their part point to the continuing profitability of STM publishing, the lack of closures of existing journals and the absence of a decline in the rate of launch of new journals since repositories came online as evidence of a lack of impact to date, and hence as evidence of low risk of impact going forward. Many publishers’ business instincts tell them otherwise; they have little choice about needing to accept submissions from large funders such as NIH, but there has been some tightening of publishers’ Green policies (page 102).
    2. Gold open access based on APCs has a number of potential advantages. It would scale with the growth in research outputs, there are potential system-wide savings, and reuse is simplified. Research funders generally reimburse publication charges, but even with broad funder support the details regarding the funding arrangements within universities it remain to be fully worked out. It is unclear where the market will set OA publication charges: they are currently lower than the historical average cost of article publication; about 25% of authors are from developing countries;
    3. The APC model itself has become more complicated, with variable APCs (e.g. based on length), discounts, prepayments and institutional membership schemes, offsetting and bundling arrangements for hybrid publications, an individual membership scheme, and so on (page 91; 93).
    1. One thing that irritates me more than anything is the expectation people have to other people’s time, specifically open source project maintainers. They are not your tech support. They built a product you are using for free. You’re welcome.

      I think the vast majority of open source users don't need to be told this. But it only takes a few jerks to regularly annoy someone.

      Chris Patti added a good point. Even if you can't donate, you can send short thank-you emails. That should include anyone who makes something you find helpful or entertaining, whether it's software, open access books, MOOCs, tutorials, a blog, webcomics, videos, etc.

    1. So, my fellow Americans, whatever you may believe, whether you prefer one party or no party, our collective future depends on your willingness to uphold your obligations as a citizen.  To vote.  To speak out.

      Absolutely, but it's government's job at all levels--from our hometowns to Washington, DC--to make it easier for citizens to do that. Far too many Americans simply can't fulfill many of these "obligations as a citizen," due to work, or kids or fear or lack of information, or school, basically, life. Government has to lower those barriers, make it way more possible for citizens to do their civic duties. There's a tremendous opportunity to deploy free, open source tools--heck, even proprietary ones--here.

    2. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic.  Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. 

      C'mon, civic technologists, government innovators, open data advocates: this can be a call to arms. Isn't the point of "open government" to bring people together to engage with their leaders, provide the facts, and allow more informed, engaged debate?

    3. It will only happen if we fix our politics. A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything.  This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests.  That’s one of our strengths, too.  Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

      While technology doesn't solve everything, I firmly believe it has a critical role to play in fixing our politics. Better and easier ways for citizens to hold their government accountable, engage with their elected officials and each other, and way more exist. We're using one right now.

    4. That’s how we forged a Trans-Pacific Partnership to open markets, protect workers and the environment, and advance American leadership in Asia.  It cuts 18,000 taxes on products Made in America, and supports more good jobs.  With TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do.  You want to show our strength in this century?  Approve this agreement.  Give us the tools to enforce it. 

      An opportunity to employ online, open co-creation tools. Such as, say, Hypothes.is. Or what the D.C.'s Mayor Bowser and city council are doing with the Madison online policymaking software.

      Back when this was still being negotiated in secret, a leaked chapter of TPP was opened on the very first version of Madison. What could've been as far as harnessing open online annotation for transparent, smarter policy outcomes.

    5. how do we make technology work for us, and not against us

      This is a critical question for both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and for every presidential candidate. But at least the President and Congressional leaders are talking about it--we've heard next to nothing from all the candidates for the White House, and next to nothing at all the debates.

      I wonder: what happens to 18F, USDS, each agency's online engagement staff, etc. the day after a GOP candidate wins? What happens if the White House stays with Democrats? Beats me, and that's incredibly problematic.

      Either way, Congress can and should also play a role in supporting--at least maintaining--the progress made on open source, adopting/creating better tech, outfits like 18F/USDS. Building out a Congressional-and-civil-society "tech transition survival" plan would be a great, bipartisan, bicameral project. I think it's also fully within the realm of possibility.

    1. For hundreds of years, the most important tools of humanistsand social scientists were pen or brush and paper. Today, scholars require a range of digital tools for research,teaching, and writing, including tools for finding, filtering and reviewing, processing and organizing, anno-tating, analyzing, and visualizing digital information. Even though we can point to current efforts in many ofthese areas, lack of coordination among them is a problem: a great deal of tool building is done on a localscale, and this results in unnecessary redundancy of effort.1

      Another great line about the importance of open standards.

    2. As NSFdirector Ardent L. Bement, Jr., observes, “with today's electrical grid. . . my neighbor and I can use differentappliances to meet our individual needs; as long as the appliances conform to certain electrical standards,they will work reliably,” and a sufficiently advanced cyberinfrastructure will work similarly: researchers willhave “easy access to the computing, communication, and information resources they need, while pursuingdifferent avenues of interest using different tools.”92

      Helpful analogy for thinking about importance of open standards/interoperability.

    1. Kent C. Dodds shares some ideas about making open source projects friendly to new contributors. He starts with the obvious things: provide guides and good documentation. He suggests adding labels that make beginner-friendly issues easy to find. One idea that was new to me: Write the specification and tests for a new feature, then let someone else implement it.

      How getting into open source has been awesome for me<br> What open source project should I contribute to?

    1. Guidelines for publishing GLAM data (galleries, libraries, archives, museums) on GitHub. It applies to publishing any kind of data anywhere.

      • Document the schema of the data.
      • Make the usage terms and conditions clear.
      • Tell people how to report issues.<br> Or, tell them that they're on their own.
      • Tell people whether you accept pull requests (user-contributed edits and additions), and how.
      • Tell people how often the data will be updated, even if the answer is "sporadically" or "maybe never".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Knowledge<br> http://openglam.org/faq/

  5. Dec 2015
    1. I think it’s very much analogous to whether a family would want to take them in.

      It is not at all analogous. There is no moral basis for thinking that someone should have the right to enter a family, while their is plenty of reason to think that people ought to have freedom of movement.

    1. We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

      We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.

    1. In addition to the improved performance, Big Sur is far more versatile and efficient than the off-the-shelf solutions in our previous generation. While many high-performance computing systems require special cooling and other unique infrastructure to operate, we have optimized these new servers for thermal and power efficiency, allowing us to operate them even in our own free-air cooled, Open Compute standard data centers.

      Facebook's Open Compute Project releases open-source hardware designs created with energy efficiency and ease of maintenance as priorities.

    1. The EDUPUB Initiative VitalSource regularly collaborates with independent consultants and industry experts including the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), Tech For All, JISC, Alternative Media Access Center (AMAC), and others. With the help of these experts, VitalSource strives to ensure its platform conforms to applicable accessibility standards including Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Accessibility Guidelines established by the Worldwide Web Consortium known as WCAG 2.0. The state of the platform's conformance with Section 508 at any point in time is made available through publication of Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates (VPATs).  VitalSource continues to support industry standards for accessibility by conducting conformance testing on all Bookshelf platforms – offline on Windows and Macs; online on Windows and Macs using standard browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari); and on mobile devices for iOS and Android. All Bookshelf platforms are evaluated using industry-leading screen reading programs available for the platform including JAWS and NVDA for Windows, VoiceOver for Mac and iOS, and TalkBack for Android. To ensure a comprehensive reading experience, all Bookshelf platforms have been evaluated using EPUB® and enhanced PDF books.

      Could see a lot of potential for Open Standards, including annotations. What’s not so clear is how they can manage to produce such ePub while maintaining their DRM-focused practice. Heard about LCP (Lightweight Content Protection). But have yet to get a fully-accessible ePub which is also DRMed in such a way.

    1. a home for the project that provides them with some open source credibility as well as a community of potential adoptees and participants.

      This part makes it sound even more like Open Washing. Apereo is a legitimate foundation for Open Source development and Blackboard entities entering by a side-door would be a dubious process. But we probably should be careful as to what this means for Apereo itself.

    2. Moodlerooms, now owned by Blackboard Remote-Learner UK, now owned by Blackboard Netspot, now owned by Blackboard Nivel Siete, now owned by Blackboard

      During MoodleMoot, the notion that one organisation could “own” different institutional members of the Moodle Association was brushed away. But it sounds like a distinct possibility. Maybe not Blackboard but, say, a publishing house or an EdTech vendor…

    1. In open education we have generally focused on the rights that individuals have to remix content, while not providing or using publishing tools that make it easy to fork content in ways that make sense to non-programming communities. Wikity attempts to apply the tools and logic of forking to WordPress, the world's most popular web content platform. Content published in Wikity is easily forked to new sites while maintaining an attribution trail and keeping track of past versions.

      Mike Caulfield is working on WordPress software to make Federated Wiki concepts accessible to a wider audience. http://wikity.cc/ is the most recent result.

    1. We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices. Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.
    2. In Elsevier's case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: "simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest"

      The copyrighted material in question is academic research, much of which is paid for by public funds. This judge is confusing "public" with "publishing companies". How much has the academic journal scam cost the public?

    1. The goal of education is for the educator to become less and less needed for learners to learn.

      The reverse of the typical “goal displacement”. Instead of focusing on ensuring our continued employment as “instructors”, we want to make sure learning happens. Deep down, we know we’ll find ways to work, no matter what happens. The comparison with health can be interesting. If doctors had an incentive to keep people sick, society wouldn’t benefit much. Allegedly, Chinese healthcare provides incentives for doctors to help people stay healthy. Sounds like it’d make sense, somehow. Yet education and health are both treated like industries. We produce graduates, future employees, etc. Doctors produce people who fit a pattern of what it means to be healthy in a given social context. There’s even a factory-chain metaphor used when some people apply “lean management” to hospitals or colleges. Not that the problem is with the management philosophy itself. But focusing so much on resource allocation blinds us from a deep reality: as we are getting healthier and more “learned”, roles are shifting.

    1. the development of OER provides proof for the need of strong user rights in education. By looking at effects of successful OER projects we can describe a future educational reality, in which institutions, educators, and students benefit from a more liberal copyright law. Part of the success of Wikipedia as an education tool is the fact that no one accessing the site, or copying it for students, needs to worry: “Is this legal?”
    1. Among the most useful summaries I have found for Linked Data, generally, and in relationship to libraries, specifically. After first reading it, got to hear of the acronym LODLAM: “Linked Open Data for Libraries, Archives, and Museums”. Been finding uses for this tag, in no small part because it gets people to think about the connections between diverse knowledge-focused institutions, places where knowledge is constructed. Somewhat surprised academia, universities, colleges, institutes, or educational organisations like schools aren’t explicitly tied to those others. In fact, it’s quite remarkable that education tends to drive much development in #OpenData, as opposed to municipal or federal governments, for instance. But it’s still very interesting to think about Libraries and Museums as moving from a focus on (a Web of) documents to a focus on (a Web of) data.

    2. Anyone can say Anything

      The “Open World Assumption” is central to this post and to the actual shift in paradigm when it comes to moving from documents to data. People/institutions have an alleged interest in protecting the way their assets are described. Even libraries. The Open World Assumption makes it sound quite chaotic, to some ears. And claims that machine learning will solve everything tend not to help the unconvinced too much. Something to note is that this ability to say something about a third party’s resource connects really well with Web annotations (which do more than “add metadata” to those resources) and with the fact that no-cost access to some item of content isn’t the end of the openness.

  6. Nov 2015
    1. Encouraging students to curate their own content

      Learners already create and curate a lot of “content”. Let’s encourage them to do more with it, even if they keep it somewhat closed. Much of it doesn’t have to be so high-minded, as even forum posts can do a lot to the learning process. “Open Education” isn’t merely about content and a lot of work in the 5Rs can be done in learning communities.

    1. With over 36 million visitors each month, the San Francisco-based platform-capitalist company Academia.edu is hugely popular with researchers. Its founder and CEO Richard Price maintains it is the ‘largest social-publishing network for scientists’, and ‘larger than all its competitors put together’. Yet posting on Academia.edu is far from being ethically and politically equivalent to using an institutional open access repository, which is how it is often understood by academics. Academia.edu’s financial rationale rests on the ability of the venture-capital-funded professional entrepreneurs who run it to monetize the data flows generated by researchers. Academia.edu can thus be seen to have a parasitical relationship to a public education system from which state funding is steadily being withdrawn.

      Includes links to related articles.

    1. The four freedoms don’t limit us as creators — they open possibilities for us as creators and consumers. When you apply them to software, you get Linux, Webkit/Chrome, and WordPress. When you apply them to medicine, you get the Open Genomics Engine, which is accelerating cancer research and bringing us closer to personalized treatment. When you apply them to companies, you get radically geographically distributed, results-based organizations like Automattic. When you apply them to events you get TEDx, Barcamp, and WordCamp. When you apply them to knowledge, you get Wikipedia.
    2. B2 was ultimately abandoned by its creator. If I’d been using it under a proprietary license, that would have been the end — for me, and all its other users. But because we had freedoms 2 and 3, Mike Little and I were able to use the software as a foundation
    3. I’ve spent a third of my life building software based on Stallman’s four freedoms, and I’ve been astonished by the results. WordPress wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for those freedoms, and it couldn’t have evolved the way it has. WordPress was based on a program called B2/cafelog that predated it by two years. I was using B2 because it had freedoms 0 and 1
    1. The Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, originally expressed by Richard Stallman. It is free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Software offered for a fee can still be free. A program is free software if the users have four essential freedoms:

      0. Run the program as you wish, for any purpose.<br> 1. Study the source code, and change it as you please.<br> 2. Copy and distribute the original program.<br> 3. Copy and distribute modified versions.

    1. Companies need to have realistic expectations of the work-life balance of open source maintainers.

      When you hire an open source developer, you hire someone who works all the time--not just 8-5, not just at a desk, not just on that one pet project that management's currently excited about. They work on that, they work on the related libraries, they work on projects that use those libraries, they work on the next great version of the libraries the company will need in two more years.

      Plan for your own future by letting your developers explore it for you. They already are...even before you've hired them.

    2. effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects

      If anything is missing with regards to open source within companies (of all sizes), it's this situation.

      Teaching "companies" (or rather the entire management stack/chain) how to "effectively contribute and participate in upstream projects" could change the game for those companies, the projects they interface with, and certainly for the developers (inside and outside of the companies).

    3. They should be treated like adults though and allowed to spend what they see as an appropriate amount of time working on the project versus other projects for the company. Trying to quanitfy/limit the amount of time leads to conflict and strife and unhappy management and employees. It doesn't work and it's not a long term, maintainable solution.

      In the end, it's a quest of trust. Hire people who work on the open source projects your company depends on. Then, let them keep doing it--for pay...at last!--and expect them to continue to balance the worlds of open source and business...as they likely already were, but now with the needle tilted slightly (or more, one would hope) in favor of working on open source code.

      It's like picking flowers. If you pick them and bring them inside, they die. Plant them in some fertile ground, however, and let them keep doing their thing. (OK, that was a bit strained...but hopefully you see my point ^_^).

    4. Some projects work to actively alienate corporations trying to contribute because of ideology. This is not the path that will lead us to sustainable open source software development and companies that can contribute responsibly.

      :+1:

      /me pats IBM on the back one more time. :)

      There are (a very few) companies that balance these worlds of community and commerce well.

      If you know of another, please reply!

    5. The company refuses to expand the core development team with non-employees

      From what I've seen these projects are often licensed under the AGPL and essentially amount to "loss leader source." Community === "add on builders" and "consumers" in the minds of the product team not future "land owners."

      Be sure the project is community lead (or in transition that way at least!) before you sign that CLA...or even bother with that patch.

    1. All six editors and all 31 editorial board members of Lingua, one of the top journals in linguistics, last week resigned to protest Elsevier’s policies on pricing and its refusal to convert the journal to an open-access publication that would be free online. As soon as January, when the departing editors’ noncompete contracts expire, they plan to start a new open-access journal to be called Glossa.”
    1. This article included an estimate from the system that further backs up the $530 – $640 figures. [Hanley’s] rough estimate: As of a few years ago, learners at the 23-campus, 460,200-student university system were spending $300 million a year on course materials — about $651 per student per school year.

      This graph is the kicker. It is NOT about textbook costs, it's about how much students can afford to spend. The amount hasn't changed, or has gone down, since '02!

    1. Open Education We believe that educational opportunities should be available to all learners. Creating an open education ecosystem involves making learning materials, data, and educational opportunities available without restrictions imposed by copyright laws, access barriers, or exclusive proprietary systems that lack interoperability and limit the free exchange of information.

      DOE office of ed tech

    1. creation of an OER culture among faculty

      Pretty much what we’re trying to enable. Culture change is organic, but there are ways to empower those actors who are pushing things in an appropriate direction, in terms of Open Education.

  7. Oct 2015