Tim Chambers wrote:
I don't see that to be necessary.
Not necessary, sure! But a great opportunity for enhanced visibility.
I think you've really pointed us in a better direction than my original concept, though. We should praise them for their innovativeness, while simultaneously challenging them to be even more innovative by using an open license.
Neverminding Nupedia/Wikipedia, an open license on this content could be extremely useful across the board for other academics who can then modify and adapt the material, updating it over time, and redistributing it at will. This MIT project can form the beginnings of a revolution in how teaching materials are distributed and updated.
This is the key lesson of the advantage of "free speech" over "free beer".
The materials on the OCW site will be open and freely available worldwide for non-commercial purposes such as research and education, providing an extraordinary resource, free of charge, which others can adapt to their own needs.Right away, this sounds better to me than today's situation, which requires the purchase of expensive textbooks to acquire substantial knowledge. Let's wait to see what the CONTENT looks like. When I was as the 'Tute, many of my courses were taught from course notes -- the textbooks were published years later. If OCW includes detailed course notes, it could be a tremendous benefit.
There's no doubt about that! It's a huge step forward. but imagine that others could not only adapt the materials to their *own* needs, but also *redistribute* those adaptations, to allow other people to benefit as well.
Criticism of a project as bold as this could cause backlash -- especially given Wikipedia's already-cool reception by so many academics.
I'm completely unaware of any "cool reception" by "so many" academics. Has there been a critical article published that I'm unaware of? A critical discussion on any academic mailing lists?
I've seen a very small handful of people who were skeptical of Wikipedia *at the beginning*, and of course *anyone* with any sense who looks at it today will recognize that it is very much a work in progress. But I'm unaware of any particularly cool reception by academics in general.
I'm sure that over the next few years, many of them will find it by accident, using a search engine, and find themselves pleasantly surprised when they discover that the superb article they just read was written by a group of volunteers hard at work in a totally unstructured process. :-)
I think Wikipedia should praise MIT for its innovativeness. Let's wait to see what the content looks like and how it feels to play by their IP rules before throwing stones.
I certainly do agree with this idea! We should of course seek publicity in a positive manner whenever possible. Good advocacy will involve praising people for their limited steps towards openness and freedom, while at the same time pointing out how much more could be done.
--- ************************************************* * http://www.wikipedia.com/ * * You can edit this page right now! * *************************************************