maybe a good point to reflect on the ways in which the open source software community did not fully open and dismantle hierarchies, and how maybe scholarly communication is also not yet as open and non-hierarchical as we might want it to be

this seems like an essential and fundamental cultural shift: away from private critique and toward public review as part of the open scholarly process

for - ToC construction - recommendation - should be participatory

comment - Stop Reset Go process using Trailmark mark-in notation within Indyweb people-centered, interpersonal software ecosystem is inherently designed: - to be participatory - to mitigate progress traps - In fact, - the greater the diversity of perspectives, - the greater the efficacy in mitigating progress traps - For this reason, open source is necessary to achieve the optimal transformations of improvement

The Paradox of Open (Source) is as Keller and Tarkowski formulate it, that the clear socio-economic value and tech impact of open source comes from underfunded / volunteer work. Vgl [[Bootstrapping 20201007204011]] and the role of precarity in it. Makes me think about 1937 Ronald Coase's transaction costs which in [[Here Comes Everybody by Clay Shirky]] is used to derive a Cosean Floor (and Cosean Ceiling). Openness allows you to operate below the Cosean Floor, but it seems that to bootstrap beyond that first stage is harder. Are such projects incapable of finding a spot above the Floor further down the chain, or are they pushed aside (or rather 'harvested') by those already positioned and operating above that Floor? Perhaps your spot above the floor needs to be part of the design of the work done below the floor. What's the link with my [[Openheid en haar grenzen 20130131154227]] in which I position openness as necessity to operate in a networked environment, and as necessarily limited by human group dynamics and keeping those healthy? Balancing both is the sweetspot in the complex domain. Are we any good at doing that in other terms than just social group behaviour in a room? #openvraag what's the online/bootstrapping equiv of it? How did we do that for my company 11 yrs ago (in part by operating something else above the Floor alongside)?

problems with negotiation skills. Responses mentioned a lack of member attributes that foster relationship building, such as amiability, openness, and respect for others.

Putting the "open" in internet.

PsyArXiv Preprints | Openness to Experience Relates to COVID-19 Vaccination Rates across 48 United States. (n.d.). Retrieved March 21, 2022, from https://psyarxiv.com/n34t8/

Open practices are, indeed, continually negotiated. This is another way of looking at openness - that doing things in the open leave them in a contingent state. i.e. openness as the opposite of 'closure'. Perhaps then what we need is to create structures for teaching and learning that enable this kind of contingency - the ability to review and re-negotiate what we are doing and how we are doing it? This is a form of metacognitive learning on a personal and organisational level. Each teacher/learner needs to be able to observe the system they are in and negotiate how to change it as they proceed. In my own OEP, I do this, this way:

"Nonaka’s and Takeuchi’s practical adaptation of ‘Nishida philosophy’ – their SECI model of organisational knowledge creation – proposes everything is implaced within a “ba” (field). Such Ba can be physical or conceptual. We can think of the basho as a shifting context (such as being a student in a University) or set of moving constraints (like the rules of a game). Either way, what we do / what we are is something implaced within a larger field.

When it comes to learning, a key thing here is to think less not only about how and where we implace ourselves, but equally about what sort of field we are generating. Ba/sho is akin to a habitat; habits develop in relation to specific habitats. If we want to change our habits, we need to also change our habitat. In ‘Nishida philosophy’ subject and object are one, people and environment correlate." Source: Neil Mulholland Build-A-Basho | Thursday 23rd September 2021

Openness by itself can't make a dent against corporations.

This wrongly assumes that

• Permanent records are always desirable
• Accountability undermines corporations

Godlee, F. (2021). Why healthcare needs rebels. BMJ, 375, n2559. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2559

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).

This reminds me of closed systems, pretty much the opposite of what Dan Whaley (Founder, CEO of Hypothes.is) is talking about here:

https://youtu.be/RYjOfTv0Tjs?t=603

Why don't you provide a straightforward way to download the annotation data from the user's account?

Modersitzki, N., Phan, L. V., Kuper, N., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2020). Who is impacted? Personality predicts individual differences in psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s65ux

Science, C. for O. (2020 May 5). TOP Factor to appear in Master Journal List. https://www.cos.io/about/news/cos-and-the-web-of-science-collaborate-to-bring-top-factor-to-master-journal-list

Pagnini, F., Bonalda, E., Montrasi, E., Toselli, E., & Alessandro, A. (2020). Reframing the psychological impact of the COVID-19 outbreak through a social media community for students [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/d5wph

Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Lyu, H., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Luo, J. (2020, May 7). The Influence of COVID-19 on Well-Being. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/znj7h

Jach, H., & Smillie, L. (2020, May 5). Testing the Information-Seeking Theory of Openness/Intellect. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zqcjw

How COVID-19 has changed the use and communication of evidence. (n.d.). Nesta. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/how-covid-19-has-changed-use-and-communication-evidence/

Hossain, M. A. (2020). Is the spread of COVID-19 across countries influenced by environmental, economic and social factors? [Preprint]. Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.20058164

Mentions openness as a tool at 3.10

This concept is addressed further in https://ocsdnet.org/principles-and-practice-in-open-science-addressing-power-and-inequality-through-situated-openness/

Throughout this section, Foucault characterizes correspondence as a way to reveal the self: "a certain way of manifesting oneself to oneself and to others," to "show oneself," "a decipherment of the self by the self as an opening one gives the other onto oneself."

This sort of 'opening' is to make oneself vulnerable, to be seen by others. (cf. Marback's "A Meditation on Vulnerability in Rhetoric")

This is characteristic particularly of writing that is intended for others (correspondence), but in what ways are other forms of writing equally--if not more--revealing of the self?

(That also makes me question whether any writing is truly for the self and not intended in some way for others. Even diaries/journals are written with the possible eventuality that someone other than the writer will read it.)

Workforce-readiness focused compendium of how edtech innovations align with preparing students for jobs.

Amen: open licensing as key infrastructure in improving public education rather than an end in itself!

I appreciate the distinction -- between openness in content and openness in practice. But may disagree on the assessment of their associated costs. I bet the authors' thought on this has also evolved after the MOOC movement.

In open science, both kinds of openness will incur burden and cost.

"Openness as a sense of practice"

So openness is sort of like being open to new ways of thinking/being within constraints which, in the process, are also reshaped. I enjoy how postmodern and posthuman thinking plays with dichotomies (openness/constraints) and shows how they work together in interesting ways.

So open educational standards?

Indeed. And neither is the Web.

Fascinating. Who's the leading person on this?

Big question!

I'd use the word "organic" to describe this process...

A great analogy for course design, particularly the types of courses informed by #digped philosophies.

..intellectual property too. Can radically open be translated into scholarship, at least as currently defined?

Well, certain privileged and credentialed members of the next generation, right?

The "commons" as both a place for ideas and tools.

Great description! Applies to code AND ideas.

But how does this relate to openness? Why is one or the other of these scenarios more open?

Space is an apt metaphor here. Design of space effects its relative openness too.

Like open web annotation as defined by the w3c standards.

I like how the politics slowly become more and more obvious in these examples of governance.

Democratic knowledge production.

Just wow! Not any more!!

This classical text on openness begins with an anecdote about 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?

Nice