Hello,
Jimmy Wales (Jimbo) was kind enough to invite me to the wikipedia list as a way to contribute, and gain feedback for one of my current projects. The project is called The California Open Source Textbook Project (COSTP) www.opensourcetext.org
The idea is to utilize open source and innovative content licensing (via Creative Commons www.creativecommons.org ) to help California realize a initial significant savings, and eventual complete elimination of its $400M+ (and rising) annual debt for K-12 textbooks.
This project has been lobbied to the Governor's office, the State Senate and Assembly, the California Teacher's Assn., several foundations, and many others.
Most of those who have had benefit of hearing about COSTP in detail are impressed with the possibilities. It will take a combination of political will, and a pilot that proves the concept (not necessarily in that order) to make this work.
We would like to get a pilot going, and what I'm currently thinking about doing - in the absence of funds - is starting something up via the Connexions Project at Rice University http://cnx.rice.edu/
I will be adding more information, in the way of updates, and a more complete project business model to the site soon.
All feedback is welcome. I understand this is a forum set up to share ideas, and am delighted to share what little I know about this area.
Thanks again, Sanford
Sanford Forte, Founder and Director California Open Source Textbook Project Palo Alto, CA www.opensourcetext.org
Sanford Forte wrote:
We would like to get a pilot going, and what I'm currently thinking about doing - in the absence of funds - is starting something up via the Connexions Project at Rice University http://cnx.rice.edu/
Those who are interested in getting right down to the 'meat of the matter' should look here for the content: http://cnx.rice.edu/courses/
They are using the Creative Commons 'Attribution' license -- this is not 'Attribution-Share Alike', if you're a license connoisseur such as myself. :-)
All feedback is welcome. I understand this is a forum set up to share ideas, and am delighted to share what little I know about this area.
Our greatest strength is the strength of our community, and the "institutional knowledge" that we've gained as a group. We talk a lot, but more importantly, we just *do* things as they seem possible, without waiting for a 'project business model'. ;-)
For your purposes, what kinds of textbooks would be most useful to you as as 'pilot that proves the concept'? Choose wisely, because you may find yourself in two years holding a copy of whatever book you request of us!
My own thinking here is that the textbook project of the Wikimedia Foundation should focus on a single book or series of books that fit into the K-8 curriculum.
Interested parties should then write in accordance with the California state standards, supplemented by standards of other states where appropriate, and should also endeavor to obtain examples of competitor books as a "development target", i.e. to meet or exceed the standard set by existing texts.
If we focus our efforts in this way, we should be able to produce something that could be printed in small quantities as an example, and then you could use that as a proof of concept for your lobbying efforts.
--Jimbo
Jimbo writes:
Our greatest strength is the strength of our community, and the "institutional knowledge" that we've gained as a group. We talk a lot, but more importantly, we just *do* things as they seem possible, without waiting for a 'project business model'. ;-)
------------ ;) I'm with you. Here's some more background, to help make clear why there is a project summary, and other 'constraints' in a project like this. It should also enswer some of your questions.
In California (and most other states) the State Departments of Education have "curriculum framworks" groups (or divisions). There's a link to the California Curriculum Frameworks group on my web site.
The Frameworks groups 'rotates' the various content areas (for all grades) through th esystem every eight years. Thus, one year might see High School Geometry, Physics, an elementary education topic, etc. developed. The frameworks are put together by Education Department specialists, with some voluntary help by a select group of teachers familiar with the subject matter.
Once the framework for a certain course is finished, anyone can use it as a guide to creating content.
The framework is absolutely necessary to follow, as a general guide to content decisions, and approach. Why? Because once a publisher finsishes a topical area (let's say high school geometry), the finished product goes to the State Board of Education textbook review committee for approval. If the book is seen as meeting the framework standards, it is then recommended by the Board for adoption by any California State District who want to use it. Often, several books are chosen for a topical area, and the individual districts adopt the one they most like.
Here's another caveat. K-8 (especially K-5) content is often created around a highly detailed set of specifics that require publishers to create a whole content 'program' that meets the framework standard.
Thus, a pilot project for some topical area in the grades 9-12 range would probably be most practical, because the demands would be more discrete, and easier to manage.
Another problem (one I have no control over at the moment), is that the intention of COSTP is to have this all result in printed textbooks. The minute one starts talking about replacing the printed book with cD-ROM's, web-based environments, etc., eyes begin to gloss over. It costs money to produce a book. However, if a successful pilot product could pass muster with the State Board of Ed., it would be a matter of finding one of the R.R. Donnelly's of the world to print it, at a normal markup (still saving enormous profits taken by the publishers). At the very least, a pilot that passed muster in terms of meeting the framework standards would prove that this can be done, and spur legislation (if not in California, certainly elsewhere)
I'm attaching a version of the project plan (which is really a rationale - in depth - for the project...it's not a 'procedural guide for how to do this')
Relative to open source, the one constraint in K-12 is that there *are* frameworks standards to be met.
I would suggest reading the project plan - it's not that long - and then going from there. I've spent a lot of time in the state sytem lobbying this project. In another life, I worked with several major textbook publishers, so I have some insight into how they work, and how the system works.
COSTP - ro something like it - could save billions in textbook costs, worldwide.
For your purposes, what kinds of textbooks would be most useful to you as as 'pilot that proves the concept'? Choose wisely, because you may find yourself in two years holding a copy of whatever book you request of us!
------------- Wow! This is what I like...action!
I would start by taking a look at the math frameworks http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/math.pdf
The above doc was accessed as a subset of www.cde.ca.gov/cfir
There are more frameworks guides there.
Here's Science http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/downloads.html
There's more.
Again, the best place to start is the high school curriculum because it's easier to manage.
My own thinking here is that the textbook project of the Wikimedia Foundation should focus on a single book or series of books that fit into the K-8 curriculum.
---------- I would encourage any author (or group of authors) that wants to take on the K-8 curriculum to read the framworks first. They're more integrated, and demanding, than K-12 material. However, in some ways, it would make sense to see what came out of an open source effort for say 'language development'. It's an all-encompassing, amorphous area that crosses over disciplines. However, it's also just the sort of undertaking - if proven to be possible in open source - that would open the door to serious consideration by California and other states to go the open source route for textbook provisioning.
Interested parties should then write in accordance with the California state standards, supplemented by standards of other states where appropriate, and should also endeavor to obtain examples of competitor books as a "development target", i.e. to meet or exceed the standard set by existing texts.
---------- Well put. Mostly, the publishers 'pay attention' to the curriculum frameworks of three states - California, Florida, and Texas. Their hope is that they will get one, or more of those three states, make their cost-of-goods' break even, and sell to the other states (most of which are followers, with a few exceptions) - that's where the profit is made.
If we focus our efforts in this way, we should be able to produce something that could be printed in small quantities as an example, and then you could use that as a proof of concept for your lobbying efforts.
----------- Absolutely; if you guys can pull that off, millions, maybe billions of other people would be forever in your debt.(I'm not exaggerating this #, as there is a great need for K-12 books/content written in English for places like China, India, etc.).
There are massive economies that can be wrought via open source for educational materials. In the college and university (and technical training) texbook sectors, there is already some impressive work going on (e.g. O'Reilly), but nobody has taken on the biggest challenge of all, K-12.
There are many, many advantages to doing open source in the K-12 sector. Not only could the best 'on-the-ground' teacher content be included, but some books that are currently out of print might be gotten back into the content stream for with various 'attribution' licenses.
Also as portable digital devices begin to insinuate themselves into the classroom (this will happen in a big way withint the next 5-10 years), it will be important to be able to stream content without making people paying an arm and a leg. From experience, I can tell you that if one of the commercial publishers has published an 'integrated' social studies book, ten years hense, and there is a lot of supplementary material streamed from their servers to the stdents and teachers, someone is going to have to pay for that. Imagine a 10th-grader streaming the 'Preamble to the Consitittion of the United States" from say, a Prentice-Hall server, and having her school system have to anye up a micropayment for it. This is just one more thing that open source in this sector will do - i.e. liberate content for the good of all in education, and help technology live up to its promise of 'more, for less, for everyone'.
If you have time, read the attached summary. If you have questions, fire away! If you require a voice conversation, send me your #, and we'll chat.
Sanford
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Sanford Forte wrote:
The framework is absolutely necessary to follow, as a general guide to content decisions, and approach.
Right. If you check the archives, we were discussing the frameworks just before you joined the list, and I gave links to frameworks of different states. Presumably, we should look at the frameworks of multiple states and try to meet several of them at once, when possible.
Thus, a pilot project for some topical area in the grades 9-12 range would probably be most practical, because the demands would be more discrete, and easier to manage.
That sounds good to me. Can you provide a specific link to content standards for topic areas in grades 9-12 so that we can all peruse it and further refine the choice of a pilot project? (Nevermind, I see you did, below...)
Another problem (one I have no control over at the moment), is that the intention of COSTP is to have this all result in printed textbooks. The minute one starts talking about replacing the printed book with cD-ROM's, web-based environments, etc., eyes begin to gloss over. It costs money to produce a book.
Absolutely. We'll take as the primary focus of what we're doing, the organizing principle of this particular pilot project to be the production of content that's usable in paper format.
However, if a successful pilot product could pass muster with the State Board of Ed., it would be a matter of finding one of the R.R. Donnelly's of the world to print it, at a normal markup (still saving enormous profits taken by the publishers).
Yes! The raw cost of printing is very low as compared to the prices of textbooks that have proprietary content.
At the very least, a pilot that passed muster in terms of meeting the framework standards would prove that this can be done, and spur legislation (if not in California, certainly elsewhere)
Isn't it true that legislation isn't really necessary in order for GNU-free texts to compete directly with proprietary texts? I mean, if we can produce a product that meets the CA standards, and print it for say 2/3s the cost of the competitors, then for their own reasons, various districts will be inclined to buy ours rather than the proprietary stuff? What legislation is really needed, then?
Relative to open source, the one constraint in K-12 is that there *are* frameworks standards to be met.
Well, that actually makes our job easier, as it eliminates a lot of the time-consuming debates we would otherwise have about what "ought" to go into a 9th grade American History book. The more detailed the standard, then the easier it will be for us to simply work to meet the standard.
Our wiki development model works best when there's an easy "yes/no" answer as to whether something belongs or not.
I would suggest reading the project plan - it's not that long - and then going from there. I've spent a lot of time in the state sytem lobbying this project. In another life, I worked with several major textbook publishers, so I have some insight into how they work, and how the system works.
Can you fill us in more on what, exactly, you've been lobbying for?
I would start by taking a look at the math frameworks http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/math.pdf
Math is a little harder for us than some other things, just because of the constraints of the web and our wiki software. We're best with text, like a history book. There should also be a lot of re-usability for our existing wikipedia content.
On the other hand, we probably have a higher 'brain power' in areas of sciene and math and computers, just because of the sort of people who we have working on the project for the most part.
Well put. Mostly, the publishers 'pay attention' to the curriculum frameworks of three states - California, Florida, and Texas. Their hope is that they will get one, or more of those three states, make their cost-of-goods' break even, and sell to the other states (most of which are followers, with a few exceptions) - that's where the profit is made.
Good information! I had already found the California and Florida websites, I will look for the California website.
Absolutely; if you guys can pull that off, millions, maybe billions of other people would be forever in your debt.(I'm not exaggerating this #, as there is a great need for K-12 books/content written in English for places like China, India, etc.).
Hey, that's what we're all about: World Domination. Fast. :-)
--Jimbo
Sanford Forte wrote:
The framework is absolutely necessary to follow, as a general guide to content decisions, and approach.
Right. If you check the archives, we were discussing the frameworks just before you joined the list, and I gave links to frameworks of different states. Presumably, we should look at the frameworks of multiple states and try to meet several of them at once, when possible.
---------- Good idea.
Another problem (one I have no control over at the moment), is that the intention of COSTP is to have this all result in printed textbooks. The minute one starts talking about replacing the printed book with
cD-ROM's,
web-based environments, etc., eyes begin to gloss over. It costs money
to
produce a book.
Absolutely. We'll take as the primary focus of what we're doing, the organizing principle of this particular pilot project to be the production of content that's usable in paper format.
--------- Great.
At the very least, a pilot that passed muster in terms of meeting the framework standards would prove
that
this can be done, and spur legislation (if not in California, certainly elsewhere)
Isn't it true that legislation isn't really necessary in order for GNU-free texts to compete directly with proprietary texts? I mean, if we can produce a product that meets the CA standards, and print it for say 2/3s the cost of the competitors, then for their own reasons, various districts will be inclined to buy ours rather than the proprietary stuff? What legislation is really needed, then?
--------- California (and maybe some other states) published its own K-12 materials into the 50's. The book were terrible because they were created by a few curriculum writers on the state dole. When the baby boom hit, commercial publishers saw an opening, and asked the state for permission to publish *for* the state. Thus, the California Legislature legislated the State out of the textbook production business.
It's really not a big deal to create new legislation authorizing the state to do this itself. It will take political will, and the latter would be emboldened by a project that proved it possible to radically reduce cost. At the very least, if the open source model works, even if the state decided not to act, open source could be presented as an option. This would create a powerful opening for open source here, and other states, as well.
I would suggest reading the project plan - it's not that long - and then going from there. I've spent a lot of time in the state sytem lobbying
this
project. In another life, I worked with several major textbook
publishers,
so I have some insight into how they work, and how the system works.
Can you fill us in more on what, exactly, you've been lobbying for?
---------- I've been lobbying for three things:
1) Acceptance of the open source model as a viable alternative for K-12 textbook production.
2) Having the legislature approve production of texbooks (from open source content) by the state. (this would require the state to set up a system that 'sourced' open source, and filtered the material to meet frameworks standards; thus, content from individuals, web sites, out-of-print-authors, and teachers could contribute to 'content bins' for organization, and publishing by the state. The initial publishing efforts would also require the state to pony up the cash - to itself - to physically publish the books. There's detail in the plan summary).
I would start by taking a look at the math frameworks http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/math.pdf
Math is a little harder for us than some other things, just because of the constraints of the web and our wiki software. We're best with text, like a history book. There should also be a lot of re-usability for our existing wikipedia content.
On the other hand, we probably have a higher 'brain power' in areas of sciene and math and computers, just because of the sort of people who we have working on the project for the most part.
--------- Any curricula would work. If Wikipedia finishes a project in American History, fine. The idea is to show that it can be done, that open source can work as effectively as commercial publishers (if not better) in this domain.
Absolutely; if you guys can pull that off, millions, maybe billions of
other
people would be forever in your debt.(I'm not exaggerating this #, as
there
is a great need for K-12 books/content written in English for places
like
China, India, etc.).
Hey, that's what we're all about: World Domination. Fast. :-)
---------- Do you have a supply of wikipedia flags? Or, perhaps a chapter in the World History text about the 'next Guttenberg revolution'
Sanford
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Thus, the California Legislature legislated the State out of the textbook production business.
It's really not a big deal to create new legislation authorizing the state to do this itself.
I will not support any effort to do anything of that nature. That sounds like a completley horrible idea, and I would speak at length to the legislature (if they would listen to me) in opposition.
- Acceptance of the open source model as a viable alternative for K-12
textbook production.
I support this, although there's no reason for new legislation to do that.
- Having the legislature approve production of texbooks (from open source
content) by the state.
I'm deeply opposed to this alternative. The state has absolutely no business being involved in the production of textbooks, and this would virtually guarantee the elimination of all the possible cost savings that you're pitching.
The initial publishing efforts would also require the state to pony up the cash - to itself - to physically publish the books.
Good grief! I'm horrified.
You really need to change your mind on this aspect of things, as it completely undermines everything that you're trying to do, and has a huge number of negative side-effects as well.
I protest in the strongest possible terms, and have no interest in helping with this aspect of your project.
--Jimbo
Thus, the California Legislature legislated the State out of the textbook production business.
It's really not a big deal to create new legislation authorizing the
state
to do this itself.
I will not support any effort to do anything of that nature. That sounds like a completley horrible idea, and I would speak at length to the legislature (if they would listen to me) in opposition.
- Acceptance of the open source model as a viable alternative for K-12
textbook production.
I support this, although there's no reason for new legislation to do that.
----------- All, (and Jimbo)
This is unfortunate, because it's based on misunderstanding.
I will respond here as best I can, as the meat of Jimbo's reservations are gone into on another post (privately) to me. I will answer his post - I hope to his satisfaction.
There would be in California, if California chose to sponsor the physical publishing of the book. I've explained why in earlier posts.
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.
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.
- Having the legislature approve production of texbooks (from open
source
content) by the state.
I'm deeply opposed to this alternative. The state has absolutely no business being involved in the production of textbooks, and this would virtually guarantee the elimination of all the possible cost savings that you're pitching.
---------------- How is that?
Here is some rational. It's all in the model that I posted to the list.
some comments: 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.
If California was willing to pony up the cash (to itself, not to me) to perform the physical production of its own textbooks, (given certain licensing schemes), they would have been able to charge a slight premium back to other states for content that *California* had paid to develop, independent of commercial publishers. This reverse licensing procedure would save other states 100's of millions of dollars (realizing somewhere between 90-95% of the savings that California realizes).
However, *if* Wickipedia were to develop the textbook, under the GNU FDL license, the picture changes slightly. Also, certain inefficiencies appear.
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. However, what this will mean is that certain inefficiencies will get becak into the pricing model. As long as commercial publishers *compete* with each other for business that the state can render itself, prices will be higher to the state. These commercial firms will be competing for state business, and all the huckstering, marketing, conventions, etc. would continue. Note that 20-30% of the cost of a textbook comes from competitive marketing.
The initial publishing efforts would also require the state to pony up the cash - to itself - to physically publish the books.
Good grief! I'm horrified.
-------------- 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?
YOur comments point in a direction that is completely opposite to what I've intended.
In fact, under the original model (using Connexions [at Rice U.]), there would be "content bins" for every chapter of every curricular area. There would be multiple textbooks available (in fact, as many as possible) through open source that met the frameworks standards. Thus, the districts could choose whatever book, and/or approach, met their fancy.
To points about cost overruns, the process would keep those to a minimum, because there would be no marketing, royalty, or inventory numbers to fudge. It would be very straightforward - in this way: here's the content, here's what it cost to print, do you want it? Case over. Competitive biding on the print side - internationally, if necessary, would bring the print cost way down. (It's a fact that university math books in the US that sell for over $100MSRP sell for less than $10 (real $$) in places like India, printed on cheaper stock, in paperback.)
To points about limited choice by teachers and districts, I've answered some of that (above). Also, realize that one of the primary goals of COSTP is to *include* more teacher-related content in the process. It's in the model I posted.
You really need to change your mind on this aspect of things, as it completely undermines everything that you're trying to do, and has a huge number of negative side-effects as well.
---------- There are no negative side effects. They only exist if you assume the state owns the content, which under the GNU license, and via the WIckipedia publishing model, the state wouldn't. However, consider - again, looking ta 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!)
I protest in the strongest possible terms, and have no interest in helping with this aspect of your project.
---------- Why? The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers, students, teachers, etc.), give other states an opportunity to share in the bounty, help internatinoal organizations get cheaper content in English, etc. It's in the model. What's wrong with that?
One of the things that I've had to battle over the two years that COSTP has been in existence is having everyone - on all sides - understand that it's in the best interests of the end users of the product (textbooks) to have them created in open source.
I hope this helps, and that everyone understands that any books created under GNU, by Wickipedia, would *not* be owned by California.
Now, most of our kids are in public schools. They get crappy textbooks, some don't get any textbooks because their districts are too poor (it happens, even in California), the schools are overcharged by publishers, creating massive opportunity cost penalties for school districts, etc.
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
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.
The *goal* is to reduce cost to the state (really, the taxpayers), give other states an opportunity to share in the bounty, help internatinoal organizations get cheaper content in English, etc. It's in the model.
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.
I would urge you to call me to straighten this out.
Look, we're on the same side. We may differ how best to get to the end goal - using open source to benefit *people*, but that's the goal for COSTP. This is a pure effort, aimed at helping people, and helping to deliver what I consider to be the ultimate promise of technology - that is: more, for less, for everyone.
Sanford
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
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
--- 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
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.
----------- Jimbo,
The States *are* the source for the published materials. The states *create* the frameworks for the textbooks. They had given over the right to publish to commercial publishers when the baby boom made it impractible to self-publish. This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the prices again.
If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy GNU-licensed content that will be "taken over" by commercial publishers (who will realize great economies from your free content), and take even *larger* profits as they compete for state business. Sure, the commercial publishers won't be able to "charge-up" for the content - do you think they'll care? Do you think that the very low rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of these books will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books adopted? Think again. I've been there.
Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't understand economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get into the fine points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect competition, if you like) that inefficiencies are created in this system.
The cost of textbooks has risen at 3x the rate of inflation since 1992, Jimbo. Is that 'efficiency'?
I have no problem with commercial publishers doing the books; I just stated that. I'm saying that the cost *in the current system* will not be as low as otherwise.
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.
----------- I was initially trained as an economist. I spent 15 years (another career ago, for me) in the textbook industry? I know how that business works, and I know it cold. I know the state side. I know what dostricts are clamoring for.
Again, has competition in this sector led to lower textbook costs? I can walk into Barnes and Noble today and purchase a trade version of a geometry text for $25. The very same (or similar) content in a commercial textbook will cost *three to four times* that amount. Soo where's your commercial 'efficiency'?
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?
----------- You ar completely misunderstanding my proposition. Would you like to turn over the highways to private enterprise? How about medical care (look what a great job private enterprise has done there)? How about pharma (there's a really cool example of private enterprise creating something that only the wealthy can afford).
Education is a public service. You may be philosophically opposed to public education. We probably share a lot of opinions about the real problems that effect the education sector. However, public education isn't going to go away, not anytime soon. There's a way to help school districts get more money to pay teachers, to help with school lunch programs, etc. One way is to reduce to cost of books. That's what COSTP is about.
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.
---------------- Did I not say that if Wickipedia started a project, that any state choosing to use your materials would have to abide by the licenses you mandate? The COSTP idea is to get the books out there, cheaply. My original model was contrived because I didn't have the funds to lobby many states at one time.
Did I not say that my original model was contrived in this way because of the above set of constraints, and that if it *had* to change (due to the states not having the vision to fund their own publishing ventures), that that would be OK with me?
btw, the states currently *are* publishers. They have long relationships with the R.R. Donnelly's of the world. They publish all kinds of material themselves, and they do it *cheaper* that it would cost to outsource. Please don't tell me about government inefficiency.
Yes, government is inefficient, often; however, that doesn't mean that it *has* to be that way. You, as a change agent, someone who wants to make things better for people, should surely understand that.
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.
------------- This is *not* about a "state takeover" of the textbook business. I'll say it again; if the material coming from Wickipedia is under the licenses you state, the states cannot own the material. Period. Case closed. I don't have a problem with that. What I am saying, is that we will see (counterintuitively), some price inefficiencies rising from that.
Now, there might be ways to deal with those inefficiencies. Maybe we help the adopting states by finding our own publishers, who are willing to state (via contract) up front that they will not charge over a certain raw cost percentage of the content. There are many (hypothetical, at present) ways to deal with this.
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!
-------------- Again, for all intents and purposes, the current situation *is* 'owned and operated' by the states. Don't you see that? They create the standards, they create the frameworks, they decide what content goes into the books, they decide which books to approve (depending on how hard the commercial publishers wine and dine the selection committees). I've been there.
COSTP's intent was to put *hard* restraints on a **public/private** cooperative that would publish books economically. That is *not* - as you put it - "a state run publishing company".
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.
---------- With due respect (and I mean that), you are illustrating a complete ignorance of the textbook publishing business. The "print" side of the business is very competitive, because the barriers to entry are very low (more economics).
The content side is *not* competitive, because there is essentially a private content publishing cartel, owned by just a few publishing giants. Surely, you're aware of the economic convergence that has taken place in textbook publishing over the last few decades. Thonpson, Pearson, etc. These are massive companies that price their goods in a cartel-like fashion. They pass nothing on to their customers except what the non-cometitive market for their goods will bear. Again, I"ve been there, Jimbo.
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.
------------ Read what I stated above, if you still think that after digesting what I've written, then there isn't much hope for us working together.
There's no surer way to corrupt and destroy the GNU-free process than this.
----------- What? Again, read what I wrote. The states would *not* own the content, they would *not* publish the books - *if* Wickipedia gets one finished, or proves it can be done.
Do you think the states want COSTP? No way. Why? Because (and the devil is in the details, I've invited a phone call to explain those details, but so far, nothing but attacks and invective). OK, Why do the states not want to take on COSTP?
Because the whole sick business of how content is selected, dumbed-down, limited, etc. would be up to public view. Because there would actually be *oversight* - private, citizen-oversight* applied to the process. This is *anything but* the "state-run" balderdash that you're dishing out.
It's offensive, based on incomplete information, and not worthy of the hard work that you and I both are trying to do.
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.
----------- Jimbo, calling what I wrote above 'stupid', won't make it that. You can say it, but that doesn't make it true. I've done my level best to answer your queries. Why the ad hominums? At this point, I'm mostly disappointed that you would go into this forum, trash a project that is itwo hard years in the making, etc. *without* the benefit of a phone call to have me answer deep reservations that you have.
Instead, I find COSTP attacked as something *it isn't*. Labeled as 'socialist', and so on. What purpose does that serve?
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.
------------ I said that from the beginning. I've also said that the cost efficiencies won't be as great. (we might be able to find ways to help that out, going forward).
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.
---------------- Call me, because you're repeating yourself in the face of my statements to the contrary. Look, many, many people who are "open source" supporters have seen, and support COSTP. They took the time to discuss the fine details. Not a *single* person of the dozens who have taken the time to learn the details thinks this is a bad idea.
Freedom works.
--------- Right, if you give it a chance.
"freedom is participation in power" - Cicero
Sanford
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Sanford Forte wrote:
This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the prices again.
Competition drives *down* prices. Economics 101.
If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy GNU-licensed content that will be "taken over" by commercial publishers (who will realize great economies from your free content), and take even *larger* profits as they compete for state business.
I hope they do realize larger profits, because then our success is ensured all the more.
Sure, the commercial publishers won't be able to "charge-up" for the content - do you think they'll care? Do you think that the very low rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of these books will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books adopted? Think again. I've been there.
If the state of California accepts a pilot text produced by the Wikimedia Foundation into the curriculum (and why wouldn't they?), then *anyone* could produce that book, and the license would guarantee it. At that point we'd have price competition to produce those books -- now a commodity -- and the best possible outcome.
If you're going to say that for political reasons (bribes?) the standards committee will never approve a 'free' textbook, then *that's* where you need to focus your lobbying efforts, to ensure that the process of getting acceptance is fair and open.
Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't understand economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get into the fine points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect competition, if you like) that inefficiencies are created in this system.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 01:02:01PM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Sanford Forte wrote:
This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the prices again.
Competition drives *down* prices. Economics 101.
In this case it doesn't work that way.
Textbook publishing in Poland is horrible too. While making it all private really improved quality of textbooks, it certainly didn't managed to drive prices down - they're insanely inflated.
Bussiness model for textbook publishing is something like: * spring : make a textbook * early summer : use any means possible to get as many teachers as possible choose your textbook. teachers don't care much how much it will cost and often don't really know either at this point * late summer : print like crazy * semtember : sell at grossly inflated prices. risk is huge, as you must sell everything in just about two weeks or you will have to wait whole year with capital being frozen in books (if you manage to sell it next year at all that is), so you must keep margins very high
* next years : make a new version of textbook, incompatible enough to discourage reuse, but similar enough to keep teacherbase
Eliminating that risk could really drive costs down. Easy solutions include having different regions start terms at different time, or having copyrights abolished. As we can't get the former, we may try with the latter.
Side note: To get teachers in Poland use GNU textbooks, getting certification by ministry of education could help a lot. That's not free but probably not that expensive either (not that I ever tried to get one).
Thank you Tomasz. It's really hard to understand why this is, but it *is*. It's a byproduct of the imperfect competition that has been created by education groups giving over the control of content production to private enterprise, with *no* public oversight. The public interest has not been served.
It's a worldwide phenomoenon, even in Poland. Thanks for comfirming, in Poland, what I know to be true here in the US.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tomasz Wegrzanowski" taw@users.sourceforge.net To: textbook-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 01:02:01PM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Sanford Forte wrote:
This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the prices again.
Competition drives *down* prices. Economics 101.
In this case it doesn't work that way.
Textbook publishing in Poland is horrible too. While making it all private really improved quality of textbooks, it certainly didn't managed to drive prices down - they're insanely inflated.
Bussiness model for textbook publishing is something like:
- spring : make a textbook
- early summer : use any means possible to get as many teachers as
possible
choose your textbook. teachers don't care much how much it will cost and often don't really know either at this point
- late summer : print like crazy
- semtember : sell at grossly inflated prices. risk is huge, as you must sell everything in just about two weeks or you will have to wait whole
year
with capital being frozen in books (if you manage to sell it next year
at all that is),
so you must keep margins very high
- next years : make a new version of textbook, incompatible enough to discourage reuse, but similar enough to keep teacherbase
Eliminating that risk could really drive costs down. Easy solutions include having different regions start terms at different
time,
or having copyrights abolished. As we can't get the former, we may try with the latter.
Side note: To get teachers in Poland use GNU textbooks, getting certification by
ministry
of education could help a lot. That's not free but probably not that
expensive
either (not that I ever tried to get one). _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com To: textbook-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:02 PM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project
Sanford Forte wrote:
This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up the prices again.
Competition drives *down* prices. Economics 101.
-------- See my other posts. Economics 101 is economic 'theory'. Try Economics 202 (microeconomics) to see how markets work, 'in reality'.
If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy GNU-licensed content that will be "taken over" by commercial publishers (who will realize great economies from your free content), and take even *larger* profits as they compete for state business.
I hope they do realize larger profits, because then our success is ensured all the more.
----------- Larger profits mean higher prices. See my other posts. I've been there Jimbo, you haven't.
Sure, the commercial publishers won't be able to "charge-up" for the content - do you think they'll care? Do you think that the very low rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of these books will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books adopted? Think again. I've been there.
If the state of California accepts a pilot text produced by the Wikimedia Foundation into the curriculum (and why wouldn't they?), then *anyone* could produce that book, and the license would guarantee it. At that point we'd have price competition to produce those books -- now a commodity -- and the best possible outcome.
--------- And who is going to show California the finished product, in colour, with teacher's manuals, supplementary materials, overheads, etc? Who is going to be present at the meetings to 'sell' the state - and districts the books?
It's not as simple as dumping open source content into a bin, having someone 'like' it, and then hiring a rock-bottom publisher.
Yes, *some* materail will get into the curriculum this way, but if you want a curriculum and content revolution to happen, it will take a lot longer your way.
If you're going to say that for political reasons (bribes?) the standards committee will never approve a 'free' textbook, then *that's* where you need to focus your lobbying efforts, to ensure that the process of getting acceptance is fair and open.
--------------- I'm doing that. However, there is no incentive for State Boards to act otherwise. I could be wrong about other states, btw,. There may be more results to be had with the small states, to begin with.
Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't understand economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get into the fine points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect competition, if you like) that inefficiencies are created in this system.
From a *microeconomic* point of view, competition among printers is
the best way to ensure inexpensive texts.
Again, has competition in this sector led to lower textbook costs?
Go back to the drawing board and think about the difference between commodity texts and proprietary texts.
------------------- You're mixing apples and oranges. If you're talking about a textbook, you're talking about "someone of last resort" to *service* the book. Who, at wickipedia, will do this? I can tell you that there will be lots of argument coming from the state curriculum departments about "what happens when we need *instant* customer service around a textbook issue (supply, revision, where do suggestions go[and will the state personnel go with that?]), etc, etc. There is a whole substructure to supporting curriculum production - including books - that you're overlooking.
Let's talk commodity texts. wickipedia publishes, a state likes the book, and a commercial printer publishes. Great. Some books will make it in this way. The model will probably, over time result in a slight reduction of prices. There will even be market behavior multiplier effects (economics 301) that impact the behavior of current commercial publishers, making them more efficient, and forcing them to keep prices stable, etc. etc.
You have a simple, pure, "publish open source, and distribute" model in place. That's great, and I'm all for it. Let's do it. All I'm saying is that your assumptions, based on nothing more than guesses about what the system currently demands (and how it works) is somehow going to revolutionize textbook publishing. I don't agree.
I can walk into Barnes and Noble today and purchase a trade version of a geometry text for $25. The very same (or similar) content in a commercial textbook will cost *three to four times* that amount. Soo where's your commercial 'efficiency'?
My commercial efficiency is demonstrated *right there*, in your hands, that $25 book, as opposed to the $75-$100 book produced by a politicized and *proprietary* process.
---------------- Wrong. It proves that there is oligopolistic, cartel-like pricing going on in the industry. You're completely missing the point of what needs to be done to meet the *process, as it currently exists, on the ground, in reality*, head on...find a way to merge with it, tactically explore how to turn little steps into big ones, and then make something really big, and permanent, happen. That thing (goal) is open source textbooks, not owned by anyone, free to all who want to use them.
You ar completely misunderstanding my proposition. Would you like to turn over the highways to private enterprise? How about medical care (look what a great job private enterprise has done there)? How about pharma (there's a really cool example of private enterprise creating something that only the wealthy can afford).
Yes, I think that all of those things should be privatized. Next question?
------------- Well, health care is already privatized, so where's all the advantage from the marketplace?
What amuses me about this, is the seeming naivte about the 'purity' of economic stance that's taken here, with no sense of how private markets really work - on the ground. In a way, what you're proposing is very socialistic, only you don't see it that way. There appears to be a sense that if open source puts up the content, and the private sector is allowed to compete (using that content), that the most perfect scenario arises, relative to pricing that content. Are you a betting man? It ain't gonna work that way. Human beings don't *behave* with perfect efficiency (Economics 401 - Consumer Behavior). Markets are messy.
What I am saying, is that we will see (counterintuitively), some price inefficiencies rising from that.
Which is why you propose a state takeover of the textbook business.
You say that you don't, but then you turn around and say that you do.
-------- Read my posts. Take my (experienced, been there, done that) word for it, or not.
It's unfortunate that you're portraying what I've done as 'socialistic', 'stupid', horrific', etc.
Now, there might be ways to deal with those inefficiencies. Maybe we help the adopting states by finding our own publishers, who are willing to state (via contract) up front that they will not charge over a certain raw cost percentage of the content. There are many (hypothetical, at present) ways to deal with this.
Why do we need to do that, it doesn't make any sense to do that.
I don't think you've thought this through very well at all.
----------- Frankly Jimbo, all evidence to the contrary appears to indicate that you're more guilty of that, than I. I'm really sorry that you continue to portray things that way.
Consider: we create a textbook, call it "Wikimedia: 9th Grade American History". We get it accepted, as a paper text, by the committee. If the committee is corrupt (bribed) or whatever, and refuses to consider it, then that's a big problem, and your lobbying should focus strongly on that.
But once it's accepted, then the "Wikimedia: 9th Grade American History" will easily outcompete all the other textbooks on price, because it can and will be produced by highly competitive low cost printers. We've removed the proprietary 'edge'. And if those low cost printers make big profits, all the better!
-------------- I said it above, I'll say it again. There *has* to be a superstructure, an *organization* that *services* the content, and the problems around the physical production and distribution of the books. That what COSTP proposes the states do.
With due respect (and I mean that), you are illustrating a complete ignorance of the textbook publishing business. The "print" side of the business is very competitive, because the barriers to entry are very low (more economics).
Right, that's what I've been trying to explain to you.
------------ Again, read what I've written. It's not *just* about price. It's about who can produce the 'best' material, service that material (on demand), continually improve that material (on demand, open source could handle this), and get the material in front of prospective districts to promote it for use. The open source community can't do all these things.
The content side is *not* competitive, because there is essentially a private content publishing cartel, owned by just a few publishing giants.
Right, and that's where we come in.
----------- We agree.
You see, I do understand this business, and I understand what open source can do for it, better than you think.
I just don't think you've thought through the implications of what you're advocating.
-------- I have thought this through, in the kind of detail that has overcome objections form legislators, education busreaucreats, private printers, and others. I've worked the system hard (with no laudits, or compensation, I don't care about those things in thhis endeavor).
Many people within the state, and within the open source community agree with what I've proposed. Private philanthrpists are looking into funding a pilot.
COSTP has been thought through from the ground, up - by someone(s) [me, and others who have 'been there'] who know what will work, what's practical (practical being defined as what will work once the curriculum is published), and how all this can be put together to have the largest impact, rather than a small, marginalized effort that makes a few hits, and misses, failing to take hold because it's working from a stance that's *outside* and *contrary to* the 'way things work'. There's probably the combined total of 50 years of intellectual capital in this thing, coming from people who are expert on all sides of the issue, including the open source community.
We can help each other. It's up to you if you want to continue.
Sanford
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
It's rather disturbing to see the Wikimedia/COSTP collaboration in danger of being torn apart, before it begins, over ideology.
If Wikimedia produces a free textbook geared towards CA schools, then let the State of CA print it in a state-run publishing company. (One already exists, BTW -- the University of California Press.) Jimbo can't stop them, and if he loves the GNU notion of freedom, then he won't try.
If Wikimedia produces a free textbook geared towards CA schools, then let private publishing companies compete to print it. Sanford can't stop them, and if he loves the GNU notion of freedom, then he won't try.
To be sure, Jimbo may lobby CA to stay out of the publishing business (or rather to get out of it -- it already prints quite a few items), and Sanford may lobby CA to print more material of civic use, and on this matter they will doubtless be bitter enemies. But in creating the content to begin with, they can be great friends.
Let us all be friends. Let us create the textbooks in collaboration, setting aside the issue of who in the end will mass-print them -- because we can't stop the wrong guy from doing it anyway!
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Freedom works.
Amen to that!
-- Toby
Toby,
Brilliant! The UN needs you.
Sanford
----- Original Message ----- From: "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu To: textbook-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project
It's rather disturbing to see the Wikimedia/COSTP collaboration in danger of being torn apart, before it begins, over ideology.
If Wikimedia produces a free textbook geared towards CA schools, then let the State of CA print it in a state-run publishing company. (One already exists, BTW -- the University of California Press.) Jimbo can't stop them, and if he loves the GNU notion of freedom, then he won't try.
If Wikimedia produces a free textbook geared towards CA schools, then let private publishing companies compete to print it. Sanford can't stop them, and if he loves the GNU notion of freedom, then he won't try.
To be sure, Jimbo may lobby CA to stay out of the publishing business (or rather to get out of it -- it already prints quite a few items), and Sanford may lobby CA to print more material of civic use, and on this matter they will doubtless be bitter enemies. But in creating the content to begin with, they can be great friends.
Let us all be friends. Let us create the textbooks in collaboration, setting aside the issue of who in the end will mass-print them -- because we can't stop the wrong guy from doing it anyway!
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Freedom works.
Amen to that!
-- Toby _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Toby,
Brilliant! The UN needs you. ;) Sanford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu To: textbook-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project
It's rather disturbing to see the Wikimedia/COSTP collaboration in danger of being torn apart, before it begins, over ideology.
If Wikimedia produces a free textbook geared towards CA schools, then let the State of CA print it in a state-run publishing company. (One already exists, BTW -- the University of California Press.) Jimbo can't stop them, and if he loves the GNU notion of freedom, then he won't try.
If Wikimedia produces a free textbook geared towards CA schools, then let private publishing companies compete to print it. Sanford can't stop them, and if he loves the GNU notion of freedom, then he won't try.
To be sure, Jimbo may lobby CA to stay out of the publishing business (or rather to get out of it -- it already prints quite a few items), and Sanford may lobby CA to print more material of civic use, and on this matter they will doubtless be bitter enemies. But in creating the content to begin with, they can be great friends.
Let us all be friends. Let us create the textbooks in collaboration, setting aside the issue of who in the end will mass-print them -- because we can't stop the wrong guy from doing it anyway!
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Freedom works.
Amen to that!
-- Toby _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Toby Bartels wrote:
To be sure, Jimbo may lobby CA to stay out of the publishing business (or rather to get out of it -- it already prints quite a few items), and Sanford may lobby CA to print more material of civic use, and on this matter they will doubtless be bitter enemies. But in creating the content to begin with, they can be great friends.
Toby is very wise, and I agree with what he is saying here completely.
I won't -- can't -- drop my opposition to the state of California being in the publishing business. But that's really not especially relevant to the rest of what we're going to be doing.
--Jimbo
Isn't it true that legislation isn't really necessary in order for GNU-free texts to compete directly with proprietary texts? I mean, if we can produce a product that meets the CA standards, and print it for say 2/3s the cost of the competitors, then for their own reasons, various districts will be inclined to buy ours rather than the proprietary stuff? What legislation is really needed, then?
--------- One thing I forgot to mention is that I hadn't considered that someone like wikipedia could take this on as a pilot. Right now, the constraining factor is proof that it can be done. So, if wikipedia can pull this off, it's a godsend.
I spoke to a state legislator last week who claimed that the best way to get the state to pay attention to something like this was to do a pilot; if possible, in conjunction with the state's knowledge. Thus, if the pilot happens, and is completed, *and* we have someone inside the bureaucacy saying "these people can deliver", it will mean a lot.
So, once you've decided (if you decide) to take this on, I will connect with some 'state' people (all this will be copied to wikipedia, in an open process) and start looking for one, or more 'champions' to take up our cause inside the bureaucracy.
San
Relative to open source, the one constraint in K-12 is that there *are* frameworks standards to be met.
Well, that actually makes our job easier, as it eliminates a lot of the time-consuming debates we would otherwise have about what "ought" to go into a 9th grade American History book. The more detailed the standard, then the easier it will be for us to simply work to meet the standard.
Our wiki development model works best when there's an easy "yes/no" answer as to whether something belongs or not.
I would suggest reading the project plan - it's not that long - and then going from there. I've spent a lot of time in the state sytem lobbying
this
project. In another life, I worked with several major textbook
publishers,
so I have some insight into how they work, and how the system works.
Can you fill us in more on what, exactly, you've been lobbying for?
I would start by taking a look at the math frameworks http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/math.pdf
Math is a little harder for us than some other things, just because of the constraints of the web and our wiki software. We're best with text, like a history book. There should also be a lot of re-usability for our existing wikipedia content.
On the other hand, we probably have a higher 'brain power' in areas of sciene and math and computers, just because of the sort of people who we have working on the project for the most part.
Well put. Mostly, the publishers 'pay attention' to the curriculum frameworks of three states - California, Florida, and Texas. Their hope
is
that they will get one, or more of those three states, make their cost-of-goods' break even, and sell to the other states (most of which
are
followers, with a few exceptions) - that's where the profit is made.
Good information! I had already found the California and Florida websites, I will look for the California website.
Absolutely; if you guys can pull that off, millions, maybe billions of
other
people would be forever in your debt.(I'm not exaggerating this #, as
there
is a great need for K-12 books/content written in English for places
like
China, India, etc.).
Hey, that's what we're all about: World Domination. Fast. :-)
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
Sanford Forte wrote in small part:
Jimbo wrote:
For your purposes, what kinds of textbooks would be most useful to you as as 'pilot that proves the concept'? Choose wisely, because you may find yourself in two years holding a copy of whatever book you request of us!
Wow! This is what I like...action!
I would start by taking a look at the math frameworks http://www.cde.ca.gov/cdepress/math.pdf
Despite that they define "mathematics" as "using abstract symbols to describe, order, explain, and predict", I think that we could do this.
The introduction says that the framework is about "content" as opposed to "pedagog[y]" -- which means that it won't tell us what sort of pedagogical approaches that they're looking for. So we may have to copy from existing textbooks at first, if we want to ensure that we're acceptable to State bureaucracy. (Naturally, we should avoid paranoia along these lines too. ^_^)
Mathematics divides into grades K-7 and grades 8-12 (beginning with algebra), not into grades K-8 (Sanford says avoid) and grades 9-12 (Sanford says do). To maximise our applicability while minimising the K-8 conflicts, we might start with Mathematical Analysis (aka Precalculus), last in the main sequence that most students are made to take, and work our way both down and up from there.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels writes:
Despite that they define "mathematics" as "using abstract symbols to describe, order, explain, and predict", I think that we could do this.
------- Absolutely! Really, most publishers now publish 'by committee'. Often, they will hire several writers and content experts to create the book, and then slap a well known person's name on it. They will also take books written by single authors. The bottom line is that the talent available to Wickipedia via the open source world is far, far, more capable on the whole than some several authors hired by a commercial publisher.
The introduction says that the framework is about "content" as opposed to "pedagog[y]" -- which means that it won't tell us what sort of pedagogical approaches that they're looking for. So we may have to copy from existing textbooks at first, if we want to ensure that we're acceptable to State bureaucracy. (Naturally, we should avoid paranoia along these lines too. ^_^)
Mathematics divides into grades K-7 and grades 8-12 (beginning with
algebra),
not into grades K-8 (Sanford says avoid) and grades 9-12 (Sanford says
do).
To maximise our applicability while minimising the K-8 conflicts, we might start with Mathematical Analysis (aka Precalculus), last in the main sequence that most students are made to take, and work our way both down and up from there.
----------- I'm going to make a call on Monday, to the state education frameworks people, and see if I can rustle up some suggestions. Failing that - even including that - your idea seems sound.
San
-- Toby _______________________________________________ Textbook-l mailing list Textbook-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org