[Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook Project

[Anthere]

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at 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