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! *
*************************************************