2,313 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2015
    1. Technology is the only way to dramatically expand access to knowledge. Why should students be limited to a textbook that was printed two years ago, and maybe designed 10 years ago, when they could have access to the world's best and most up-to-date textbook?

      Can serve well as an OER quote.

    1. The second level of Open Access is Gold Open Access, which requires the author to pay the publishing platform a fee to have their work placed somewhere it can be accessed for free. These fees can range in the hundreds to thousands of dollars.

      Not necessarily true. This is a misconception. "About 70 percent of OA journals charge no APCs at all. We’ve known this for a decade but it’s still widely overlooked by people who should know better." -Suber http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/09/opinion/not-dead-yet/an-interview-with-peter-suber-on-open-access-not-dead-yet/#_

  2. Sep 2015
    1. The W3C Annotation Working Group has a joint deliverable with the W3C Web Application Working Group called “Robust Anchoring”. This deliverable will provide a general framework for anchoring; and, although defined within the framework of annotations, the specification can also be used for other fragment identification use cases. Similarly, the W3C Media Fragments specification [media-frags] may prove useful to address some of the use cases. Finally, the Streamable Package Format draft, mentioned above, also includes a fragment identification mechanism. Would that package format be adopted for EPUB+WEB, that fragment identification may also come to the fore as an important mechanism to consider.

      Anchors are a key issue. Hope that deliverable will suffice.

    1. it was only a problem for researchers in the developing world

      the problem of predatory open access seems highly contained to just a few countries

      -- Shen and Bjork, "'Predatory' open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics", http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150910/6b26c21e/attachment-0001.pdf

      I agree with the broader point that just because this affects certain regions more, doesn't mean it's a problem. However, it's more a result of the structural incentives of: 1.) accreditation by publication; and 2.) the Anglo-American dominance of the research space at present. Researchers from elsewhere are being badly advised (and then scammed) on how to play the Anglophone system. You might just as well say that this should be addressed, rather than making it the OA community's responsibility to fix the proxies-for-quality problem

    1. Keyan Tomaselli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

      As people have pointed out in the comments, author is Editor in Chief of Critical Arts. Relevant for potential conflict of interest given this paragraph:

      Taylor & Francis in particular, via a development strategy with selected South African journals, initially facilitated by the National Research Foundation and Unisa Press, helped to position many of these titles as global, rather than only local. In so doing, they catapulted South African authors into global research networks.

  3. Aug 2015
    1. While these features have connected untold millions and created new forms of social organization, they also come at a cost. Material seems to vanish almost as quickly as it is created, disappearing amid broken links or into the constant flow of the social media “stream.” It can be hard to distinguish fact from falsehood. Corporations have stepped into this confusion, organizing our browsing and data in decidedly closed, non-transparent ways. Did it really have to turn out this way?

      La web, utopía y distopía en simultánea.

    1. In an academic world ever more infiltrated by fraudsters, con artists and pirates, one can still trust the content and academic integrity of scientific society journals and long-standing corporate publishers. They protect against article and journal cloning, identity theft, bogus journals, forgery, author substitution, fake metrics, and prevent outright intellectual property theft.

      This is an incredibly conservative stance that seems to imply that only existing entities can ever be trusted. These same entities, however, are often for-profit, making over a billion dollars per year profit, even while universities cannot afford to subscribe to all the material they need.

      Furthermore, using publisher brand as a measure of trust is not sound, as the recent cases of mass retractions and peer-review scams show: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/43761/title/Another-Mass-Retraction/

    1. However, if an open access version of a text is available, this must always be treated as the primary text. Here the commercial version of the text becomes the secondary version and it should always be cited second and in a manner that makes this completely clear. For instance, after the primary reference to the full text, you could write: ‘Also available as: ….’

      Would be interesting to write a tool that could take a paper as input and replace all citations with references to freely available versions

    1. 77 cents of every dollar spent on textbooks go to publishers. Of those 77 cents, the publishing company makes about 18 cents in pure profit, while spending 15 cents on marketing, and roughly 32 percent to cover costs (paper, printing, employee salaries, etc). At the same time, the author - the person who dedicated hundreds of hours of research to write the book – only gets about 12 cents on the dollar on average.
    1. Journals in which all peer reviewed scholarly articles are online available without any restrictions and for which an Article Processing Charge (APC) has been paid.

      This is not what gold OA means. Gold OA refers exclusively to material made OA by the publisher. It does not refer to any particular business model. This is a gross misclassification.

  4. Jul 2015
    1. Digital writing is the first kind of writing that does not reduce recorded knowledge to a rivalrous object. If we all have the right equipment, then we can all have copies of the same digital text without excluding one another, without multiplying our costs, and without depleting our resources.

      Suber, Peter. Open Access. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2013. 47.

    1. Gold open access provides everyone with access to articles during all stages of publication, with processing charges paid by the author(s).

      As conceived of in most of the literature, "gold open access" refers to the means of dissemination (done by the publisher), not any one specific business model. Gold open access does not intrinsically mean, however, that the author pays and, indeed, this was not integral to the term as it was coined by Stevan Harnad. At the time of writing in mid 2014, the majority of gold venues listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals do not operate on the basis of article processing charges and instead fund their operations through other means.

      For more on this, see:

      Suber, Peter. Open Access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.

      Eve, Martin Paul. Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

      (Both books available freely online; gold open access.)

      http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/files/2015/02/OpenGlossary1.pdf http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

  5. Jun 2015
    1. While the process of developing critical editions will still take some time, Phase 1 of Open Modernisms places reliable texts in student hands through the MVP and Open Modernisms, more or less immediately and without the cost of the book to house it.
  6. May 2015
  7. Apr 2015
    1. A good educational system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to find those who want to learn it from them; and, finally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenge known.

      I think this sums up the goals of Teach Like Mozilla and the #mozacademy

    1. To suggest that faculty are innocently waiting to be pounced on by predators is to deny their agency and their ability to make choices about their own work. There may be days where that metaphor seems apt, but I think overall this is a damaging mentality to librarians interested in promoting new models of scholarly communication.

      A nice point about how librarians need to be thoughtful in the way they present the pitfalls of the emerging open access model of scholarly communication.

    1. ’d love to hear thoughts on this approach to placing a lens on the Web Literacy Map. Please ask questions, push back, give feedback to this thinking-in-progress.

      I think you have gotten far in the unique characteristics of effective blended teaching. Specifically the online stuff.

      There are other fundamental elements there could be missing. I also wonder if the grid approach if most beneficial. There maybe better heuristics to represent what it means to be a webmaker mentor or leader.

  8. Mar 2015
    1. Yet, these are not certain, and the future of the ecosystem as I hope to shape it depends upon a growing core of influencers who are genuinely committed to and uncompromising about the value of the commons.

      Lets expand this beyond badges and commit to an protecting an open web.

    2. democratizing technology and authoritarian technology.

      I wonder how tool is separated from technology. Is technology different from a tool or is every tool a new technology? And i f we mean that is the case does that mean every tool we have ever touched either has a democratizing technology or an authoritarian technology?

      And if is every tool we have touched is the tendency in the tool or is us?

    3. There are inherent affordances and limitations to the technology that make some things possible and other things more likely. At the same time, there are complex individual and societal forces that impact how it develops, especially the power structures that develop alongside a given technology.

      getting at the definition of technology.

    4. We saw this happen with Microsoft. It started out with a big vision: How do we get a PC on every desk and in every home? It was profoundly democratizing.

      This is not true. Closed and proprietary was baked into microsofts DNA since Day.

      Though Microsoft today proves Bull's thesis. As they have become a loser, or less of a winner they have started to shake things up. Windows 10 maybe kinda free. Office Apps everywhere.

    1. lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-system. Our open-source SoC (System-on-a-Chip) designs will be based on the 64-bit RISC-V instruction set architecture. Volume silicon manufacture is planned as is a low-cost development board. There are more details on our plans in these slides from a recent talk lowRISC is a not-for-profit organisation working closely with the University of Cambridge and the open-source community.
  9. ronja.twibright.com ronja.twibright.com
    1. Ronja is a free technology project for reliable optical data links with a current range of 1.4km and a communication speed of 10Mbps full duplex. Applications of this wireless networking device include backbone of free, public, and community networks, individual and corporate Internet connectivity, and also home and building security. High reliability and availability linking is possible in combination with WiFi devices. The Twibright Ronja datalink can network neighbouring houses with cross-street ethernet access, solve the last mile problem for ISP’s, or provide a link layer for fast neighbourhood mesh networks.
  10. Feb 2015
    1. Did you think people would get angry about clones. "2048 was based on 1024, which apparently is a clone of Threes," he says succinctly. "I had no idea of this, and I didn't even know Threes existed, before releasing 2048. Not thinking that 2048 would be successful, I didn't really consider any of the possible repercussions."
  11. Dec 2014
  12. Nov 2014
    1. If we believe in equality, if we believe in participatory democracy and participatory culture, if we believe in people and progressive social change, if we believe in sustainability in all its environmental and economic and psychological manifestations, then we need to do better than slap that adjective “open” onto our projects and act as though that’s sufficient or — and this is hard, I know — even sound.
  13. Oct 2014
  14. Jun 2014
    1. Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.

      "Technology leadership is....defined by...the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers."

      The key components of this applied "open source philosophy" seem to be about increasing input, visibility, and collective motivation by taking fear out of the interaction equation.

  15. Apr 2014
  16. Mar 2014
    1. A traditional bookseller, no matter how large he is, will not be able to justify the investment necessary for creating a consumer proposition in the range of Kindle, Kobo or Nook. But he is able to afford the Tolino white-label Ecosystem. And then suddenly he is able to compete at the same level as the digital global players.

      open standards allow small players to enter the competition!

  17. Feb 2014
  18. Jan 2014
    1. If federally funded research is going to broadly benefit society, it has to be widely accessible, not just to curious private citizens, but also to industries, private organizations, and federal, state, and local governments where scientific knowledge can help create new products, solve problems, educate students, and make policy decisions.

      It is The People who will most benefit from open access to federally funded research.

    2. Giving the public what it paid for sounds noble, but from where I sit, a scientist at a well-funded research university, ensuring that research papers are available to the public for free seems pointless.

      This seems to be a comment sentiment-- the open access arguments don't address the individual "what's in it for me?" question. And it is not wrong for people to be asking this question-- not just what benefits them, but also what misery are they in for if they start down this unknown (and possibly treacherous) path? It is the rare few intrepid leaders in this space that can see beyond the immediate benefits and risks-- that can see a new world of science that could exist and are willing to make the epicly dangerous journey along with their loyal argonauts who can withstand the siren song and sail safely through the academic scylla and charybdis.