2,178 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2021
    1. In terms of defining the “open” in open web annotation, I tend to take a standards approach: the Hypothes.is tool is built upon, and our organization advocates for, open standards in web annotation.

      This explanation also highlights an additional idea of open itself. I have heard many in the W3C space criticize the open standard of web annotation arrived at because of the ultimate monoculture of the space. Most of the participants of the process were all related to Hypothes.is in some way and the result was a single product that implemented the standard. To my knowledge no other companies, groups, or individual programmers have separately implemented the standard.

      In this sense, while the "standard" is openly defined, it isn't as open as other standards which were mote slowly evolved and implemented gradually and more broadly by various programming languages and disparate groups.

    1. here is my set of best practices.I review libraries before adding them to my project. This involves skimming the code or reading it in its entirety if short, skimming the list of its dependencies, and making some quality judgements on liveliness, reliability, and maintainability in case I need to fix things myself. Note that length isn't a factor on its own, but may figure into some of these other estimates. I have on occasion pasted short modules directly into my code because I didn't think their recursive dependencies were justified.I then pin the library version and all of its dependencies with npm-shrinkwrap.Periodically, or when I need specific changes, I use npm-check to review updates. Here, I actually do look at all the changes since my pinned version, through a combination of change and commit logs. I make the call on whether the fixes and improvements outweigh the risk of updating; usually the changes are trivial and the answer is yes, so I update, shrinkwrap, skim the diff, done.I prefer not to pull in dependencies at deploy time, since I don't need the headache of github or npm being down when I need to deploy, and production machines may not have external internet access, let alone toolchains for compiling binary modules. Npm-pack followed by npm-install of the tarball is your friend here, and gets you pretty close to 100% reproducible deploys and rollbacks.This list intentionally has lots of judgement calls and few absolute rules. I don't follow all of them for all of my projects, but it is what I would consider a reasonable process for things that matter.
    2. I suspect you aren't seeing much discussion because those who have a reasonable process in place, and do not consider this situation to be as bad as everyone would have you believe, tend not to comment on it as much.
    1. JavaScript needs to fly from its comfy nest, and learn to survive on its own, on equal terms with other languages and run-times. It’s time to grow up, kid.
    2. If JavaScript were detached from the client and server platforms, the pressure of being a monoculture would be lifted — the next iteration of the JavaScript language or run-time would no longer have to please every developer in the world, but instead could focus on pleasing a much smaller audience of developers who love JavaScript and thrive with it, while enabling others to move to alternative languages or run-times.
    1. For the $$$ question, nothing comes to mind. These problems i'm hitting up against are larger than a contractor could solve in a few hours of work (which would be hundreds/thousands of dollars).
    2. Yeah, can we pay money to make this go faster? Serious question.
    3. Progress is slow though. I want to change how assets are loaded, the current implementation of "pipelines" is challenging to work with.
    1. OpenFaaS is hosted by OpenFaaS Ltd (registration: 11076587), a company which also offers commercial services, homepage sponsorships, and support.
    1. On the “lows” side, I’d say the worst thing was the impact of not being present enough for my family. I was working a full-time job and doing faastRuby on nights and weekends. Here I want to give a big shout out to my wife. She supported me through this and didn’t cut my head off in the process.
    1. ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 5). In 4 days: SciBeh workshop ‘Building an online information environment for policy relevant science’ Join us! Topics: Crisis open science, interfacing to policy, online discourse, tools for research curation talks, panels, hackathons https://t.co/SPeD5BVgj3… I https://t.co/kQClhpHKx5 [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1324286406764744704

    1. A radiograph of the pelvis showed a widening of the pubic symphysis of more than 5 cm. Also known as an open-book fracture, this injury typically occurs after high-energy blunt trauma, such as that caused in a motorcycle accident or by a fall from height.
    1. Or think of the iPhone owners who patronize independent service centers instead of using Apple's service: Apple's opening bid is "You only ever get your stuff fixed from us, at a price we set," and the owners of Apple devices say, "Hard pass." Now it's up to Apple to make a counteroffer. We'll know it's a fair one if iPhone owners decide to patronize Apple's service centers.

      Een vergelijkbaar voorbeeld is het schoonmaken van gebouwen. Het zou vreemd zijn als je een vloer die je laat leggen alleen door bepaalde schoonmakers kan laten schoonmaken. Of garages. Er zijn merkgarages maar net zoveel generieke garages. Soms zijn merkgarages beter, maar vaak kun je ook prima terecht bij een generieke garage.

    1. For a really competitive, innovative, dynamic marketplace, you need adversarial interoperability: that’s when you create a new product or service that plugs into the existing ones without the permission of the companies that make them. Think of third-party printer ink, alternative app stores, or independent repair shops that use compatible parts from rival manufacturers to fix your car or your phone or your tractor.

      De term adversial interoperability is een belangrijke term om te snappen hoe open platformen en protocollen kunnen werken. En wat ze bijdragen aan een meer divers landschap aan producten en diensten.

  2. Feb 2021
    1. By building blogging, Twitter, flickr, and shared libraries in Zotero, in to our research programmes – into the way we work anyway – we both get more research done, and build a community of engaged readers for the work itself.

      This is linked to the concept of an open scholar: Burton, G. (2009, August 11). The Open Scholar. Academic Evolution. https://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/the-open-scholar.html

      The open scholar is someone who makes their intellectual projects and processes digitally visible and who invites and encourages ongoing criticism of their work and secondary uses of any or all parts of it–at any stage of its development.

    1. Testing your open source projects will always be free! Seriously. Always. We like to think of it as our way of giving back to a community that connects so many people.
    1. Our mission is to allow people to make money via educational efforts and to dedicate the rest of their time to creating great open source products.

      What does this mean exactly? "Our mission is to allow people to make money via educational efforts"

    1. "Open access" refers to toll-free or gratis access to content

      not necessarily free content

    2. Open access refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions on access (e.g. access tolls) and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions).
    3. Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above.
    1. We’re now relaunching PRO, but instead of a paid chat and (never existing) paid documentation, your team gets access to paid gems, our visual editor for workflows, and a commercial license.
    2. And yes, at TRB GmbH, we do pay people to work on OSS
    3. To tell you the truth, the new tracing feature was the original reason why I decided to write 2.1 and make you sit and wait in agony for years. Nevertheless, tracing is simply blowing my mind. I can’t count how many hours and angering rushs of adrenaline I’ve saved since the introduction of the wtf? method and its helpful higher-level stack trace.
    1. note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

      In other words, you can build on this software in your proprietary software but can't change the Trailblazer source unless you're willing to contribute it back.

      loophole: I wonder if this will actually just push people to move their code -- which at the core is/would be a direction modification to the source code - out to a separate module. That's so easy to do with Ruby, so this restriction hardly seems like it would have any effect on encouraging contributions.

    2. Trailblazer (TRB) is an Open-Source project. Since we want to keep it that way, we decided to raise awareness for the “cost” of our work - providing new versions and features is incredibly time-consuming for us, but we love what we do.
    3. This creates a win-win situation, you as the user have your peace of mind, and we can continue working with your funds.
    1. Great thanks to Blake Education for giving us the freedom and time to develop this project in 2013 while working on their project.
    1. Only fifteen of the thirty-seven commonplace books were written in his hand. He might have dictated the others to a secretary, but the nature of his authorship, if it existed, remains a matter of conjecture. A great deal of guesswork also must go into the interpretation of the entries in his own hand, because none of them are dated. Unlike the notes of Harvey, they consist of endless excerpts, which cannot be connected with anything that was happening in the world of politics.

      I find myself wondering what this study of his commonplace books would look like if it were digitized and cross-linked? Sadly the lack of dates on the posts would prevent some knowledge from being captured, but what would the broader corpus look like?

      Consider the broader digital humanities perspective of this. Something akin to corpus linguistics, but at the level of view of what a single person reads, thinks, and reacts to over the course of their own lifetime.

      How much of a person could be recreated from such a collection?

    1. Universal Links allow you to register a series of domains that are allowed to interact with an installed application. If the application is not installed, the universal link is opened with Safari, allowing you to inform the user of the existence of an application or whatever is necessary.
    1. Implicit intents do not name a specific component, but instead declare a general action to perform, which allows a component from another app to handle it. For example, if you want to show the user a location on a map, you can use an implicit intent to request that another capable app show a specified location on a map.
    1. Eternal September or the September that never ended[1] is Usenet slang for a period beginning in September 1993,[2][3] the month that Internet service provider America Online (AOL) began offering Usenet access to its many users, overwhelming the existing culture for online forums.

      This makes me wonder at what level a founder community can manage to maintain its founder effects for incoming new members?

      Is there existing research on this? Are there potential ways to guard against it in the future?

      What happens to the IndieWeb community if it were to see similar effects?

    1. les objectifs à atteindre ne sont pas codés au départ

      Ouverture des objectifs, en renversement direct de la conception inversée si chère à l'ingénierie pédagogique. Les résultats d'apprentissage ne sont pas dans une relation de causalité linéaire avec les objectifs d'apprentissages.

    1. This gives them a slight edge but that’s nothing substantial because those fixes eventually reach Ubuntu.
    1. But all of these attempts misunderstand why the Open Source ecosystem is successful as a whole. The ecosystem of fairly standard licenses provides a level playing field that allows collaboration with low friction, and produces massive value for everyone involved – both to those that contribute and to those that don't. It is not without problems (there are many essential but unsexy projects that are struggling with funding), but introducing more friction won't improve the success of this ecosystem – it will just lead to some parts of the ecosystem to break off.
    2. Part of me thinks that open source can be more rewarding to the creators/contributors. But maybe the real contribution is the permanent addition to the tools available to humanity, and if you have the wits, you can make a decent business out of it without tainting open source.
    3. Selling proprietary software is difficult when there is so much gratis Open Source software around.
    4. For a sufficiently successful and industry-relevant open source project, it's possible for the main developers to earn a living e.g. by selling related consulting services.
    5. It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.
  3. Jan 2021
    1. Lemmy is a great open source federated and privacy respecting alternative to Reddit. Nodes can be self-hosted and posts will sync between them.

    1. Good [open] scientific practice

      Would be interesting to look at adding a contribution from the Open Energy Modelling Community. Open Energy is concerned with bringing open science practices to the models for planning energy infrastructure. In effect this means how new energy generation and use will be brought online in our communities and cities for rapid decarbonisation. Since this effects peoples surroundings it is valuable for them to be brought into the decision making process - about how models work, options they throw up etc. In Germany this community has been developing in a very interesting way and in the US the first workshop was held in 2019.

    1. Unfortunately, this probably means a death knoll for this gem, at least I predict it will contribute to its slow trajectory towards insignificance/unknownness/lack-of-users.

      Why? Because it is already the less popular option in this comparison: https://ruby.libhunt.com/compare-premailer-rails-vs-roadie-rails

      and being actively maintained is an important factor in evaluating competing options.

      So of course people will see that the premailer option is the option that is still actively maintained, is still continuing to be improved, and they'll see that this one has been relegated to dormancy/stagnancy/neglect/staleness, which will only amplify the degree/sense of abandonment it already has from its maintainer (only now it will be its users that start to abandon it, as I now have).

    2. At work, I cannot maintain this project. At home, I'd rather spend time with my children and on projects that I'm currently passionate about.
    1. unlike a traditional computer, a blockchain computer can offer strong trust guarantees, rooted in the mathematical and game-theoretic properties of the system. A user or developer can trust that a piece of code running on a blockchain computer will continue to behave as designed, even if individual participants in the network change their motivations or try to subvert the system. This means that the control of a blockchain computer can be placed in the hands of a community
    1. Augmented Steam is an open source project. You can verify the code for yourself, help us improve it or create your very own version.
    1. Would you work for free? It is a simple but loaded question that requires additional context. Is it working to help a friend do something? Is it work that you would enjoy? Does the act of working for free give you some level of satisfaction? Your gut reaction to the question may have been a hearty, “No,” but many people volunteer for a variety of things all the time, so people will work for free when there is something in it they enjoy.
    2. Open source is fundamentally good with the transparency and flexibility it brings; however, as our reliance on it goes up, the overall investment back into the ecosystem has not. It can be easy to take for granted the time and effort many developers put into open source projects. Yet it is with their time and effort that we often save our own.
    3. These developers are not greedy or selfish for wanting funding for their projects. To the contrary, they want funding to keep the project alive. A person has to eat, after all. Funding the project is a means of changing the maintainer’s timeshare—allowing themselves to put time into the project that otherwise would be used for other employment. There is only so much time in a day that a person can otherwise give.
    4. Funding should not be a struggle for open source projects. We embrace open source into our codebases frequently but have yet to fully embrace the idea that funding it actually helps us too. The bug fixes and feature requests need to be implemented, tested, and reviewed by someone who themselves can only put so much time into the project.
    1. I don’t think he implies that, he didn’t mentioned FOSS or non-FOSS. Third party doesn’t refer to licensing, only to who provides it.
    2. wouldn’t that « lesser » the FOSS effort towards desktop app’s ?
    3. Snap gets rid of dependency mess. Good. Snap offers in one place FOSS and proprietary app’s. Here I am suspicious. It may be an advantage for a commercial app-store and for some users. But this advantage may lead to loss of comfort and flexibility for the many users that rely first on FOSS.
    1. If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.

      software is often oriented towards performance as primary (if not only) criterium, it is developed through a performance-centric lens.

      other cultural, social, ethical factors are ignored or not taken into account

    1. Ways will be found to make communities sustainable,

      Ways will also be found to legibilize the deliberately inscrutable. With biomed funding so centralized, forces can be applied to increase the adoption of practices like data sharing and open science.

  4. Dec 2020
    1. Associação de Direitos Reprográficos

      Entidade sem fins lucrativos responsável por, entre outras coisas, defender "os direitos de autor dos seus associados, seja por meio de medidas judiciais, seja por meio de medidas extrajudiciais", segundo a Lei Federal nº. 9.610, de 19 de fevereiro de 1998 (conhecida como a Lei de Direitos Autorais).

      Entretanto, existe um debate acerca do artigo 46 desta lei. Segundo o texto,

      *Não constitui ofensa aos direitos autorais:

      d) de obras literárias, artísticas ou científicas, para uso exclusivo de deficientes visuais, sempre que a reprodução, sem fins comerciais, seja feita mediante o sistema Braille ou outro procedimento em qualquer suporte para esses destinatários;

      II - a reprodução, em um só exemplar de pequenos trechos, para uso privado do copista, desde que feita por este, sem intuito de lucro;*

      O ponto é: o que significa exatamente "pequenos trechos"? A própria ABDR parece também não ter muita ideia. Segundo o site da instituição, na área de Perguntas frequentes, consta a seguinte informação:

      A Lei de Direitos Autorais não define o que é “pequeno trecho” de uma obra, tampouco trata de porcentagem quando menciona pequeno trecho. **É importante frisar que pequeno trecho é um fragmento da obra que não contempla sua substância. “Pequeno trecho” não se refere à extensão da reprodução, mas sim ao conteúdo reproduzido.** Assim, qualquer intenção de se associar o “pequeno trecho” a 10 ou 15% da totalidade de uma obra não tem fundamento. Isto porque é possível que em 10 ou 15% de uma reprodução esteja contemplada parte substancial da obra protegida.

      Em todo caso, ainda que o trecho que se pretenda reproduzir possa ser objeto de consenso como sendo “pequeno trecho”, esta é apenas uma das hipóteses especificadas no artigo 46, II, da Lei de Direitos Autorais. Sendo necessário a presença conjunta de todas as condições estabelecidas nesse dispositivo legal para haver a limitação do direito de autor – tais como: a reprodução em um só exemplar, a reprodução para uso privado do copista e feita por ele, e a reprodução sem intuito de lucro.*

      Uma afirmação um tanto subjetiva. Tão subjetiva quanto a ideia de lucro associado à aprendizagem e ao conhecimento científico.

    1. Nonethel ess, scholars have begun to iden-tify procedures that can potentially mitigate political sectarianism. These in clude efforts to help Americans comprehend opposing partisans regardless of their level of agree-ment, such as by focusing on commonalities rather than differences (e.g., “we’re all Amer-icans”; SM) or communicating in the moral language of the other side (e.g., when liberals frame the consequences of climate change in terms of sanctity violations; SM).

      Interesting, especially point re climate change.

      I would go further into the ontological sources of these issues e.g. attachment to views, and how we can address that.

    2. Is motivated partisan cognition bipartisan?The extent to which each side exhibits motivated partisan (or biased) cognition is a focus of ongoing debate. Some scholars argue for symmetry (SM). For example, a recent meta-analysis demonstrates equivalent levels of motivated partisan cognition across 51 experiments investigating the tenden cy to evaluate otherwise identical in-formation more favorably when it supports versus challenges one’s political beliefs or allegiances (14). In an illu strative experiment, liberals and conservatives viewed a film clip of a political demonstration in which protestors clashed with police. Despite view-ing the identical clip, liberals rated the protesters as more violent when they believed it was an anti-abortion protest (a conservative cause) rather than a gay-rights protest (a liberal cause), whereas conservatives exhibited the opposite pattern (SM). Other scholars argue for asymmetry. For example, some evidence suggests that, relative to Democrats, Republicans have a higher need for order and greater trust in their gut-level intuitions. Such tendencies appear to motivate them to favor explana-tions that are straightforward and intuitive rather than complex and abstract, even when the latter types of explanation might be more accurate (15) (SM). Such findings are representative of the existing evidence, but conclusions remain tentative.

      This is classic material to add to that which i dug up in 2016 about non-attachment to views.

    1. Interestingly, the employers were aware of the need to avoid including specific technologies or competencies that were narrowly identifying the company's niche skills. By generating broader competency statements, they were also creating more sustainable position descriptions that could guide the company into the future, beyond the current specific technology or minute skill needs

      This is really huge to keep in mind if/when co-creating with specific industry partner. They are best served by sustainable credentials that are not specific to their brand.

    1. You can also purchase a Nextcould hosting service, which on one hand may not seem any different from giving your photos over to Google or Apple, but there's a significant difference: Nextcloud storage is demonstrably encrypted, with source code to prove it.
    1. Following the model of open-source software, we can enter our ideas and expressions into public discourse

      This also isn't a well-aligned argument. Articles published in a for-profit journal are entered into the public discourse (although obviously not into the public domain). Unless public means "without cost", which I don't think it does.

      We might want to broaden this to include open-access, which is specific to publication models.

    1. Our team is building open source community tools and Svelte fits our identity as an independent labor of love with an organic community.
    2. With some frameworks, you may find your needs at odds with the enterprise-level goals of a megacorp owner, and you may both benefit and sometimes suffer from their web-scale engineering. Svelte’s future does not depend on the continued delivery of business value to one company, and its direction is shaped in public by volunteers.
    1. The settlement of the res-titution claims made by the Italian government against the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, the Getty Museum in Malibu, and the Cleveland Museum of Art and the return to Italy of looted antiquities raise ques-tions about the integrity of some museum directors and trustees – well-informed people whom one would expect to be the guardians and defenders of the past, not par-ticipants in the commercial processes which lead to its destruction.

      The museum directors definitely should know and have some subject area expertise here, but likely the trustees wouldn't have. While the museum directors should educate them, the financial position the trustees have will almost always tend to drown out the better angels of the museum directors who rely on those trustees' support.

      Part of the question is how to redesign the structural support underpinning the system to help ensure more ethical outcomes.

    Tags

    Annotators

  5. Nov 2020
    1. In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.
    2. I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)
    3. So I propose having the repo in place, and using it for targeted proposals where we really want feedback from early users, and hold off formalising anything more until early next year, as you said.
    1. Express - 19 $ 🏃‍♀️ Skip the Review Queue 🕒 Published in 3 days 💌 Full Customer Support 💚 Support the team

      Wow, after seeing how this site works, I don't like much like it anymore.

      Esp. this below:

      Choose your preferred publish date - 9 $ Feature your project on top for 14 days and get an additional tweet - 19 $

      I hope there is/will be soon a more open/free alternative (like the "awesome" lists that use GitHub PRs instead of an opaque/proprietary submisison form).

    1. Tunnelgram is fully open source (server and client) and uses the Tunnelwire Encryption Scheme, so you can see all of the code it's built on.
  6. Oct 2020
    1. Fifth, and most challenging, we can work to reverse the divergence between the centre and the periphery. The previous four elements would help with this. But greater policy efforts are needed to give regions, where possible, a critical mass of knowledge jobs so they can connect with the leading economic activity in national centres.

      These are all downstream (redistributive) fiscal policies - nothing here on seriously addressing the main driver of inequality which is a "closed" information economy. Having identified the source at the start Sadhu is failing to think through the logic. (Or i suspect not seeing fully the source of the inequality related to automation and IT ie. costless copying plus monopoly rights).

    2. These changes are not, on the whole, the fault of globalisation, that scapegoat of the populist insurgency, but of technology-driven changes combined with policies that have reinforced the underlying forces of divergence.

      +1 this is precisely argument of open revolution.

    1. from tuka al-salani 60:48 and well actually it is a question but it's something that will probably 60:52 is out beyond our scope here but how would 60:56 social annotation be used as a research tool so not research into it but how 61:00 would we use it as a research tool

      Opening up social annotation and connecting it to a network of researchers' public-facing zettelkasten could create a sea-change of thought

      This is a broader concept I'm developing, but thought I'd bookmark this question here as an indicator that others are also interested in the question though they may not have a means of getting there (yet).

    1. However, a healthy news ecosystem doesn’t just require a thriving free press, it also needs a diversity of curators, newsletters and content discovery options that enable the weird and wonderful to surface. We want to use Nuzzel as a test kitchen to see what models works for curators as well as content creators. The simple goal is a sustainable open web where the goals of creators, curators and consumers are aligned around the best possible experience.

      This sounds exciting to me and could dovetail with efforts of many with respect to IndieWeb for Journalism.

    1. to what extent is there value in breaking down the wall between blogging and wiki, and to what extent are these two technologies best left to do what they do best?
    2. Should Wikity follow the wiki tradition of supplying editable source to collaborators? Or the web syndication model of supplying encoded content. (Here, actually, I come down rather firmly on the source side of the equation — encoded content is a model suited for readers, not co-authors).

      What does he mean by "encoded" content? and why is it a problem?

    1. being able to follow links to “follow a conversation” that is threaded on Twitter.

      This is one of my favorite parts about my website and others supporting Webmention: the conversation is aggregated onto or more closely adjacent to the source. This helps prevent context collapse.

      Has anyone made a browser tool for encouraging lateral reading? I'd love a bookmarklet that I could click to provide some highly relevant lateral reading resources for any particular page I'm on.

    1. The ideas here make me think that being able to publish on one's own site (and potentially syndicate) and send/receive webmentions may be a very useful tool within open science. We should move toward a model of academic samizdat where researchers can publish their own work for themselves and others. Doing this will give them the credit (and job prospects, etc.) while still allowing movement forward.

    1. High-level bodies such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the European Commission have called for science to become more open and endorsed a set of data-management standards known as the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles.
    1. The plan is to use the site to share surveys, interviews, and researcher notes.

      Note to self: I need to keep documenting examples of these open labs, open notebooks, etc. in the open science area.


      [also on boffosocko.com]

    2. academia is built on the premise (IMHO) of getting a good idea, parlaying that into a job and tenure, and waiting for death. I’ve had a lot of colleagues and acquaintances ask why I would bother blogging. Ask why I share all of this content online. Ask why I’m not afraid that someone is going to steal my ideas.

      Though all too true, this is just a painful statement for me. The entirety of our modern world is contingent upon the creation of ideas, their improvement and evolution, and their spreading. In an academic world where attribution of ideas is paramount, why wouldn't one publish quickly and immediately on one's own site (or anywhere else they might for that matter keeping in mind that it's almost trivially easy to self-publish it on one's own website nearly instantaneously)?

      Early areas of science were held back by the need to communicate by handwriting letters as the primary means of communication. Books eventually came, but the research involved and even the printing process could take decades. Now the primary means of science communication is via large (often corporate owned) journals, but even this process may take a year or more of research and then a year or more to publish and get the idea out. Why not write the ideas up and put them out on your own website and collect more immediate collaborators? Funding is already in such a sorry state that generally, even an idea alone, will not get the ball rolling.

      I'm reminded of the gospel song "This little light of mine" whose popular lyrics include: "Hide it under a bushel? No! / I'm gonna let it shine" and "Don't let Satan blow it out, / I'm gonna let it shine"

      I'm starting to worry that academia in conjunction with large corporate publishing interests are acting the role of Satan in the song which could easily be applied to ideas as well as to my little light.


      [also on boffosocko.com]

    1. working in public, and asking students to work in public, is fraught with dangers and challenges.
    2. If OER is free, what hidden costs exist in its production? Making these textbooks is taking me a chunk of time in the off-season.  Thanks to my salaried position, I feel ok about putting in the overtime, but it’s a privilege my colleagues who teach under year-to-year part-time non-contracts can’t afford. Who should be funding OER creation? Institutions? Students? For-profit start-ups? How will you invest time in this project without obscuring the true costs of academic labor? Right now, we pass the corruptly high cost of academic publishing onto the backs of academia’s most vulnerable members: students. But as OER gains steam, we need to come up with funding models that don’t land us back in the same quagmire of exploitation that we were trying to get out of.

      This is a nearly perfect question and something to watch in the coming years.

    3. Most of the actual texts in the Heath were public domain texts, freely available and not under any copyright restrictions.  As the Heath produced new editions (of literature from roughly 1400-1800!), forcing students to buy new textbooks or be irritatingly out of sync with page numbers, and as students turned to rental markets that necessitated them giving their books back at the end of the semester, I began to look in earnest for an alternative.

      Repackaging public domain texts and charging a steep markup too much above and beyond the cost of the paper is just highway robbery. Unless a publisher is adding some actual annotative or analytical value, they shouldn't be charging outrageous prices for textbooks of this nature.

    1. Paquette outlines 3 sets of foundational values of open pedagogy, namely:  autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.
    2. open pedagogy is currently a sort of proxy for the use and creation of open educational resources as opposed to being tied to a broader pedagogical objective.
    3. And to Vivian Rolfe’s point made at OpenEd 16, are we are paying enough attention to voices of the past?

      And of course, there's the flip side of thinking about the voices of the future as well. Looking at the past is a nice exercise, but consider what those in the past would have potentially done differently if they could have seen the future? We should spend a moment or two of reflection on what the future potentially holds with the prior of where we are right now.

    4. us ed tech folks will recognize some of the themes – individualized learning, learner choice, self-direction, – to name a few.

      Aren't these all just Montessori principles under a different name?

    1. Because students know their work will be used both by their peers and potentially by future generations of students, they invest in this work at a different level.

      I'm wondering if Greg McVerry stated something along these lines at the beginning of EDU522? I suspected he's planning something along these lines, but I'm unsure if it was stated specifically. Students should also know about creative commons and be actively opting in to creating this content as open while they're doing it. They also shouldn't be forced into opening it up, or if they do, not necessarily taking credit for it if they choose not to.

    2. Free to accessFree to reuseFree to reviseFree to remixFree to redistributeThe question becomes, then, what is the relationship between these additional capabilities and what we know about effective teaching and learning? How can we extend, revise, and remix our pedagogy based on these additional capabilities?

      I look at this and think immediatly about the Git model of allowing people to not only fork and reuse/redistribute pieces, but what about the ability to do pull requests to take improvements and push them back up the the source so that everyone potentially benefits?

    1. They are allowed to operate independently and explore with personal freedom.

      There is still typically a "thing(s)" they need to learn, a goal they need to reach, or standards that are typically set, so the freedom only goes so far.

    1. The current buzz about open pedagogy got kick-started in David Wiley’s 2013 blog post. Wiley defined open pedagogy as any approach or technique that would not be possible without the “5Rs” (at the time listed as the “4Rs plus free to access”: free to access, free to reuse, free to revise, free to remix, free to redistribute – the right to retain came later…) of OER.
    1. Commonplace books, during the Renaissance, were used to enhance the memory. Yeo writes, This reflected the ancient Greek and Roman heritage. In his Topica, Aristotle formulated a doctrine of ‘places’ (topoi or loci) that incorporated his ten categories. A link was soon drawn between this doctrine of ‘places’ (which were, for Aristotle, ‘seats of arguments’, not quotations from authors) and the art of memory. Cicero built on this in De Oratore, explaining that ‘it is chiefly order that gives distinctness to memory’; and Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria became an influential formulation. This stress on order and sequence was the crux of what came to be known as ‘topical memory’, cultivated by mnemonic techniques (‘memoria technica’) involving the association of ideas with visual images. These ideas, forms of argument, or literary tropes were ‘placed’ in the memory, conceived in spatial terms as a building, a beehive, or a set of pigeon holes. This imagined space was then searched for the images and ideas it contained…. In the ancient world, the practical application of this art was training in oratory; yet Cicero stressed that the good orator needed knowledge, not just rhetorical skill, so that memory had to be trained to store and retrieve illustrations and arguments of various kinds. Although Erasmus distrusted the mnemonic arts, like all the leading Renaissance humanists, he advocated the keeping of commonplace books as an aid to memory.

      I particularly love the way this highlights the phrase "'placed' in the memory" because the idea of loci as a place has been around so long that we tacitly use it as a verb so naturally in conjunction with memory!

      Note here how the author Richard Yeo manages not to use the phrase memory palace or method of loci.Was this on purpose?

    1. Ideas on how to analyze and predict network behavior have been informed by concepts arising from the computational and social sciences, which are themselves increasingly concerned with understanding networks. The interesting thing about these ideas is that they work at scales ranging from the molecular to the population level.

      scale free networks perhaps?

    1. Is it possible to avoid the public goods problem altogether?

      As Lynne Kelly indicates, knowledge is a broad public good, so it is kept by higher priests and only transferred in private ceremonies to the initiated in indigenous cultures. In many senses, we've brought the value of specific information down dramatically, but there's also so much of it now, even with writing and better dissemination, it's become more valuable again.

      I should revisit the economics of these ideas and create a model/graph of this idea over history with knowledge, value, and time on various axes.

    1. I’ve alluded to the deeply philosophical nature of this problem; in a sense, it’s politicized within the software communities. Some folks believe that platform developers should shoulder the costs of compatibility, and others believe that platform users (developers themselves) should bear the costs. It’s really that simple. And isn’t politics always about who has to shoulder costs for shared problems?So it’s political. And there will be angry responses to this rant.

      This idea/philosophy cuts across so many different disciplines. Is there a way to fix it? Mitigate it? An equation for maximizing it?

    1. By the time Protestantism came along, people had already internalized an individualist worldview. Henrich calls Protestantism “the WEIRDest religion,” and says it gave a “booster shot” to the process set in motion by the Catholic Church. Integral to the Reformation was the idea that faith entailed personal struggle rather than adherence to dogma. Vernacular translations of the Bible allowed people to interpret scripture more idiosyncratically. The mandate to read the Bible democratized literacy and education. After that came the inquiry into God-given natural (individual) rights and constitutional democracies. The effort to uncover the laws of political organization spurred interest in the laws of nature—in other words, science. The scientific method codified epistemic norms that broke the world down into categories and valorized abstract principles. All of these psychosocial changes fueled unprecedented innovation, the Industrial Revolution, and economic growth.

      Reading this makes me think about the political break in the United States along political and religious boundaries. Some of Trumps' core base practices a more personal religion and are generally in areas that don't display the level of individualism, but focus more on larger paternalistic families. This could be an interesting space for further exploration as it seems to be moving the "progress"(?) described by WEIRD countries backward.

    1. The Indian government is pushing a bold proposal that would make scholarly literature accessible for free to everyone in the country

      "... accessible for free ..."

      open access sampai hari ini memang hanya diartikan sebagai membuat artikel ilmiah dapat diunduh dengan membayar APC atau dikenal sebagai modus Gold OA.

      Artikel oleh Peter Suber ini menjelaskan bahwa OA tidak hanya bisa dilakukan melalui jurnal Gold OA.

  7. Sep 2020
    1. Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible.

      People need to have more of an open mind and be able to look at other peoples perspective.

    1. Many organizations assert copyright for any media which they touch, without any consideration of whether the media is eligible for copyright or whether they own the copyright.

      Shouldn't cases like these be taken to trial? Imagine someone forbidding access to a public square under allegation that it belongs to them. Afraid of being prosecuted, people start paying this person to enter the public square. One day someone decides to take the case to court. The court can't simply rule that the person can't continue asking for money to use the square. The person should be punished for having deterred people from freely using the square for so long.

    1. Hennessy, E. A., Acabchuk, R., Arnold, P. A., Dunn, A. G., Foo, Y. Z., Johnson, B. T., Geange, S. R., Haddaway, N. R., Nakagawa, S., Mapanga, W., Mengersen, K., Page, M. J., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Welch, V., & McGuinness, L. A. (2020). Ensuring Prevention Science Research is Synthesis-Ready for Immediate and Lasting Scientific Impact [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ptg9j

    1. The initials fa in the class refer to Font Awesome, an open- source set of icons created by Dave Gandy,23 which further links this project to the open- source community and its ethos of collaboration. Font Awesome gives the community icons for making professional- grade web apps, rendering artifacts and objects legible in the contemporary web design ecology

      Font Awesome est une police d'écriture et un outil d'icônes qui se base sur CSS, LESS et SASS (Wikipédia, « Font Awesome », consulté le 22 septembre 2020).

    1. "das Netz", "die Digitalisierung" oder sogar "das Wissen"

      Ich zweifle daran, dass es das Netz, die Digitalisierung und das Wissen gibt. Ich glaube, dass es sich auch bei ihnen um lokale Phänomene handelt, die auch anders sein könnten, und hinter denen es keine übergreifende Notwendigkeit gibt. Das offene Netz wurde und wird von bestimmten Gruppen und in bestimmten Machtkonstellationen entwickelt, verteidigt und vorangetrieben. Die Digitalisierung hängt eng mit z.B. der kalifornischen counter culture aber auch z.B. der Miniaturisierung und der Firmenpolitik von Chipkonzernen, z.B. Intel zusammen. Sie sähe in einer anderen historischen Konstellation, wenn sie z.B. ihr erstes Zentrum in China oder auch in Europa gewesen wäre, ganz anders aus.

    1. Huang has his sights set firmly on Intel, but while Intel has leveraged its integration of design and manufacturing, Nvidia is going to leverage its integration of chip design and software.

      beyond CUDA mentioned throughout, it's also worth mentioning that Nvidia still lacks useful open source drivers on Linux, and does not provide technical info that commonly is available to document their systems, such that open source developers could build open source drivers