--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Sanford Forte wrote:
Again, I have no quarrel with keeping the State
form being a publisher,
other than that it would cost taxpayers and school
districts more money,
otherwise.
I see no reason to suppose that the state doing something directly would be cheaper than having private enterprises compete to do the same thing.
Consider that commercial publishers, even if they
access GNU content
- would have to *compete* for the state's
business. That will drive
costs up, not down. It sounds counterintuitive,
but that's how the
system works, in textbook publishing. I spent 15
years in that
business.
No, it will drive costs down, not up. Simply hand-waving and saying that it would be cheaper, in complete ignorance of all economics and all historical precedent, is not an argument.
Shall the state take over the grocery stores, too? Do away with all that wasteful competition and marketing? Why do we need so many different car manufacturers, surely one firm could do a better job without all that wasteful competition driving costs up?
I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the
intention of COSTP. In
the model I forwarded to the list, it's pretty
clear that the
primary savings realized from a state-sponsored
textbook publishing
'business' would be marketing, royalties, and
carried inventory.
Then I'm going to be completely and totally opposed to you at every step of the way. This aspect of your project is not one which I can in good conscience support, period.
Let's say that Wickipedia finishes a pre-algebra
book, shows that
book to the California board, and the board
approves it. *Then*
(under the GNU license) California could decide to
publish itself
(if it so chose), or commercial publishers could
enter the fray, use
the Wickipedia content, and compete on price for
the end product
(the textbook).
That certainly alters the original intentions of
the COSTP model,
but I have no problem at all with it.
If you abandon the idea of a socialistic takeover of the textbook business, then we can work together. Otherwise, I'm going to be butting heads with you at every opportunity I can get.
Why? Under the original COSTP model, the state had
to publish in
order to remove the commercial publishers from the
scene. The
commercial publishers, currently 'owning' the
model of textbook
production, create cost and content
inefficiencies. Why should thi
sbe allowed to happen? Isn't it important for
taxpayers to get their
money's worth?
It *is* important that taxpayers get their money's worth which is precisely why I'm so horrified with your idea of a state run publishing company. What a monumentally bad idea!
Competitive biding on the print side -
internationally, if
necessary, would bring the print cost way down.
You're not making any sense. You can't just pick and choose *outcomes*, you have to choose a *policy*. And you've set down a policy that would result in horrible inefficiences. You claim to be opposed to competitive publishers, but you're in favor of competitive 'printers'. Same thing.
the model I posted - what advantages would lie in
state ownership
(don't flip, I'm not proposing a state-run content
collective...it's
*anything* but that!)
But you *are* proposing a state-run content collective. You've said so quite explicitly. You want the state to take over the content production process from private firms.
There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the GNU-free process than this.
The books coming from COSTP/Wickipedia would *not*
be owned by
anyone. That's a difference in the original
model, but be warned
that it will cost students and taxpayers more
money than a program
owned by one (or more) states, designed to create
content
efficiencies in K-12 curriculum. It will still
save money, and
create better content, and cost less than current
books - but the
price efficiencies won't be as dramatic
That's wrong, and it's not only wrong, it's stupid. I'm sorry, but this sort of nonsense really and truely upsets me greatly.
You asked me what I had been lobbying for, and I
told you. The parts
of the model that had the state 'owning' the
content are alterable,
depending on where the money to publish comes
from.
If you are willing to abandon the parts of your model than involve cutting out private publishers via a state takeover, then I can support what you're doing.
Again, under the original tenets of the COSTP
model, the state would
own the content, and reverse license for a tiny
fee. Under the
Wickipedia operation, the state would not own the
content, but would
(as I understand it) realize *some* of the pricing
benefits (but not
all of them), because come of the
"cost-of-goods-sold" would be
removed by the fact that the content originates in
open source.
No, they will realize *much greater* cost savings under the open source model than under the 'state owned and controlled' model. Socialism doesn't work -- there is a virtual certainty that a state produced textbook would, open source or not, be extremely biased, shoddy in quality, and vastly more expensive than the free alternative.
Freedom works.
--Jimbo
geee... you quite a liberal Jimbo !
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com