I checked out the site after reading this, and they are NOT releasing the courseware to the public domain, or even some open-content-like license; they explicitly retain full copyrights on all the material, so it's useless to us.
Perhaps Larry could write an article critical of MIT's project and name from the perspective of GNU-style "freedom", free speech versus free beer and all that good stuff.
I think Kuro5hin has seen enough of our shameless self-promotion :-) for awhile, where else might he post this? Then the goal would be to get the article, and wikipedia, slashdotted again.
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
I checked out the site after reading this, and they are NOT releasing the courseware to the public domain, or even some open-content-like license; they explicitly retain full copyrights on all the material, so it's useless to us.
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This is old news. See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/04/04/1141228 (April 4th).
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Perhaps Larry could write an article critical of MIT's project...
I don't see that to be necessary.
http://web.mit.edu/ocw/ocw-facts.html says,
The policies toward the intellectual property created for MIT OCW will be clear and consistent with other policies for scholarly material used in education. Faculty will retain ownership of most materials prepared for MIT OCW, following the MIT policy on textbook authorship. MIT will retain ownership only when significant use has been made of the Institute's resources.
But that page also says:
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.
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
I checked out the site after reading this, and they are NOT releasing the courseware to the public domain, or even some open-content-like license; they explicitly retain full copyrights on all the material, so it's useless to us.
Nonsense! It's far from useless to Wikipedians. The whole intent of the project is to make educational materials available for free! So Wikipedians should use the materials to educate themselves, then write encyclopedia articles based on what they have LEARNED.
Criticism of a project as bold as this could cause backlash -- especially given Wikipedia's already-cool reception by so many academics. 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.
<>< Tim, MIT '84 http://www.wikipedia.com/Tim_Chambers
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
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! * *************************************************
This (what Jimbo suggested) is essentially what I was hoping someone would write in response to that Slashdot article...
Larry
Tim Chambers wrote:
I don't see that to be necessary.
Not necessary, sure! But a great opportunity for enhanced visibility.
I was trying to say (diplomatically) that I thought it was a bad idea to criticize MIT's OCW at this juncture. I have two reasons for my position: (1) it's old news (Slashdot's brain fade notwithstanding), (2) it's too early to developed an informed critique of the revolutionary step that MIT is taking with OCW, however distant it may be from the GFDL ideal.
I went back and perused the GFDL. I do think it would be an interesting exercise -- especially since MIT's own ''Tech Review'' has covered Wikipedia -- for you (Jimmy) or Larry to contact MIT and simply ask them if they have considered putting OCW under the GFDL. I'm curious to know if the OCW honchos have a clue about the GFDL. That's not a bet I would make either way, but I ''will'' bet that they will reply that the GFDL is not something they want to deal with right now. Look. They're already taking a bold, high-profile step by packaging up their courseware this way. I don't think they'll want to go with the GFDL at the same time. Too much risk. Too different. OCW is enough of a risk. I think that's why they are making it clear that the same old IP rules will apply. It's a compromise to broaden their support among their own professors.
Detractors are free to complain about MIT not going far enough with OCW, but they should not be surprised when they get the same brushoff as those who whine about the high price of copyrighted textbooks. Packaging knowledge is hard work -- as any Wikipedian will admit.
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 apologize for choosing sloppy words. What I mean by "cool" is not that there's a bevy of criticism. I mean that positive, enthusiastic acceptance has been slow in coming. There are some academics rallying behind both Nupedia and Wikipedia, but the mainstream press (e.g. TR and NYT) has been cautious. It seems to me that most academics who are aware of the 'pedias are going to wait to see what Wikipedia will look like when it grows up. Furthermore, I don't think that today ''most'' academics ''are'' aware of the 'pedias.
Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?
Tim "still looking forward to the Wikipedia 1.0 CD-ROM" Chambers ><>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
Tim Chambers wrote:
Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?
:-) Yes. I think your advice is good all around!
Richard Stallman is at (or near) MIT, and he mentioned to me once that he's doing what he can to get the message across to them about free licensing. We can of course add our voice to that, although I'm pretty sure they don't really care what we think. :-)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Tim Chambers wrote:
I don't see that to be necessary.
Not necessary, sure! But a great opportunity for enhanced visibility.
I was trying to say (diplomatically) that I thought it was a bad idea to criticize MIT's OCW at this juncture. I have two reasons for my position: (1) it's old news (Slashdot's brain fade notwithstanding), (2) it's too early to developed an informed critique of the revolutionary step that MIT is taking with OCW, however distant it may be from the GFDL ideal.
I went back and perused the GFDL. I do think it would be an interesting exercise -- especially since MIT's own ''Tech Review'' has covered Wikipedia -- for you (Jimmy) or Larry to contact MIT and simply ask them if they have considered putting OCW under the GFDL. I'm curious to know if the OCW honchos have a clue about the GFDL. That's not a bet I would make either way, but I ''will'' bet that they will reply that the GFDL is not something they want to deal with right now. Look. They're already taking a bold, high-profile step by packaging up their courseware this way. I don't think they'll want to go with the GFDL at the same time. Too much risk. Too different. OCW is enough of a risk. I think that's why they are making it clear that the same old IP rules will apply. It's a compromise to broaden their support among their own professors.
Detractors are free to complain about MIT not going far enough with OCW, but they should not be surprised when they get the same brushoff as those who whine about the high price of copyrighted textbooks. Packaging knowledge is hard work -- as any Wikipedian will admit.
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 apologize for choosing sloppy words. What I mean by "cool" is not that there's a bevy of criticism. I mean that positive, enthusiastic acceptance has been slow in coming. There are some academics rallying behind both Nupedia and Wikipedia, but the mainstream press (e.g. TR and NYT) has been cautious. It seems to me that most academics who are aware of the 'pedias are going to wait to see what Wikipedia will look like when it grows up. Furthermore, I don't think that today ''most'' academics ''are'' aware of the 'pedias.
Patience. I'm merely advocating patience. Under-promise and over-deliver. Good advice for any dot-com venture these days, eh?
Tim "still looking forward to the Wikipedia 1.0 CD-ROM" Chambers ><>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org