(courtesy Mathias Schindler)
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,462845,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501... http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html
Now, is there anything WMF can do to advocate free content? Is that political or entirely in accordance with our goals? Or what can individuals do?
- d.
Now, is there anything WMF can do to advocate free content? Is that political or entirely in accordance with our goals?
I would say everything WMF does is advocating free content. You can advocate something through actions, rather than words - often works better, too.
Or what can individuals do?
Again, through their actions - use free content.
On 1/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Now, is there anything WMF can do to advocate free content? Is that political or entirely in accordance with our goals?
I would say everything WMF does is advocating free content. You can advocate something through actions, rather than words - often works better, too.
the area in question however is based aorund original research which we don't deal with much.
This more falls under the open acess movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
And are dealings with them are sadly limited.
Again, through their actions - use free content.
Can't use free content if it doesn't exist and in this case it does not. Mind you in the short term I feel that that article is as effetive as anything we could create.
the area in question however is based aorund original research which we don't deal with much.
Open content is open content. It doesn't really matter what area of open content we're talking about.
Can't use free content if it doesn't exist and in this case it does not. Mind you in the short term I feel that that article is as effetive as anything we could create.
The best way to get free content created is to show that it would get used, and the best way to do that is to use other free content.
On 1/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Open content is open content. It doesn't really matter what area of open content we're talking about.
That isn't the case when dealing with the activities of the foundation
The best way to get free content created is to show that it would get used, and the best way to do that is to use other free content.
Showing how linux is used is of only limited relivance when you want to show how scientific papers would be used. I would suggest showing how many links there are to pubmed in wikipedia might be a better aproach.
Showing how linux is used is of only limited relivance when you want to show how scientific papers would be used. I would suggest showing how many links there are to pubmed in wikipedia might be a better aproach.
And linking to pubmed doesn't count as using open content?
Of course, some uses of open content are more effective than others, but it's still using open content.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501...
"...Dezenhall told the association's professional and scholarly publishing division, he could help -- in part by simplifying the industry's message to a few key phrases that even a busy senator could grasp. Phrases like: "Public access equals government censorship..."
They've hired Cplot?!?
Jkelly
On 1/29/07, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501...
"...Dezenhall told the association's professional and scholarly publishing division, he could help -- in part by simplifying the industry's message to a few key phrases that even a busy senator could grasp. Phrases like: "Public access equals government censorship..."
They've hired Cplot?!?
Jkelly
It would explain a lot. I tend to feel that one would be rather open to a counter attack along the lines of:
montage of NASA images
"the Association of American Publishers would have you believe that this is censorship"
David Gerard wrote:
(courtesy Mathias Schindler)
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,462845,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501... http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html
Now, is there anything WMF can do to advocate free content? Is that political or entirely in accordance with our goals? Or what can individuals do?
The article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=60AADF2C-E7F2-99... goes int a bit more detail. They even note that "Nature" and "Scientific American" are owned by the same people.
I think that it would be unwise to overeact to what appears to be an act of desparation. Even the "Washington Post" uses that word in talking about the matter. If the best slogan they can come up with is "Public access equals government censorship," which sounds like something out of "1984," they really are in trouble.
Now that we have Peter Suber on our Advisory Board it will be interesting to read his comments. It might also be worthwhile to have an article about Dezenhall if we have someone familiar with the topic.
It strikes me as characteristic of the old way of doing business or government that to avoid reconsidering one's actions and admitting error one just hires a PR person to make things right.
Ec