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

[Sanford Forte]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
To: <textbook-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Introduction - California Open Source Textbook
Project


> Sanford Forte wrote:
> >This has become an untenable situation, because private publishers
> >control content. Even GNU will not keep private publishers form
> >competing with freely available GNU licensed content, and driving up
> >the prices again.
>
> Competition drives *down* prices.  Economics 101.
--------
See my other posts. Economics 101 is economic 'theory'. Try Economics 202
(microeconomics) to see how markets work, 'in reality'.

> > If *anything*, what you are proposing is that states buy
> > GNU-licensed content that will be "taken over" by commercial
> > publishers (who will realize great economies from your free
> > content), and take even *larger* profits as they compete for state
> > business.
>
> I hope they do realize larger profits, because then our success is
> ensured all the more.
-----------
Larger profits mean higher prices. See my other posts. I've been there
Jimbo, you haven't.

> > Sure, the commercial publishers won't be able to "charge-up" for the
> > content - do you think they'll care? Do you think that the very low
> > rent publishers who do ultra-cheap print versions of these books
> > will stand a snowballs chance in hell to get their books adopted?
> > Think again. I've been there.
>
> If the state of California accepts a pilot text produced by the
> Wikimedia Foundation into the curriculum (and why wouldn't they?),
> then *anyone* could produce that book, and the license would guarantee
> it.  At that point we'd have price competition to produce those books
> -- now a commodity -- and the best possible outcome.
---------
And who is going to show California the finished product, in colour, with
teacher's manuals, supplementary materials, overheads, etc? Who is going to
be present at the meetings to 'sell' the state - and districts the books?

It's not as simple as dumping open source content into a bin, having someone
'like' it, and then hiring a rock-bottom publisher.

Yes, *some* materail will get into the curriculum this way, but if you want
a curriculum and content revolution to happen, it will take a lot longer
your way.


> If you're going to say that for political reasons (bribes?) the
> standards committee will never approve a 'free' textbook, then
> *that's* where you need to focus your lobbying efforts, to ensure that
> the process of getting acceptance is fair and open.
---------------
I'm doing that. However, there is no incentive for State Boards to act
otherwise. I could be wrong about other states, btw,. There may be more
results to be had with the small states, to begin with.

> > Please, Jimbo, don't come back with ad hominums about how I don't
> > understand economics. From a *microeconomic* standpoint (we can get
> > into the fine points of disequilibriums caused by imperfect
> > competition, if you like) that inefficiencies are created in this
> > system.
>
> >From a *microeconomic* point of view, competition among printers is
> the best way to ensure inexpensive texts.
>
> > Again, has competition in this sector led to lower textbook costs?
>
> Go back to the drawing board and think about the difference between
> commodity texts and proprietary texts.
-------------------
You're mixing apples and oranges.  If you're talking about a textbook,
you're talking about "someone of last resort" to *service* the book. Who, at
wickipedia, will do this? I can tell you that there will be lots of argument
coming from the state curriculum departments about "what happens when we
need *instant* customer service around a textbook issue (supply, revision,
where do suggestions go[and will the state personnel go with that?]), etc,
etc. There is a whole substructure to supporting curriculum production -
including books - that you're overlooking.

Let's talk commodity texts. wickipedia publishes, a state likes the book,
and a commercial printer publishes. Great. Some books will make it in this
way. The model will probably, over time result in a slight reduction of
prices. There will even be market behavior multiplier effects (economics
301) that impact the behavior of current commercial publishers, making them
more efficient, and forcing them to keep prices stable, etc. etc.

You have a simple, pure, "publish open source, and distribute" model in
place. That's great, and I'm all for it. Let's do it. All I'm saying is that
your assumptions, based on nothing more than guesses about what the system
currently demands (and how it works) is somehow going to revolutionize
textbook publishing. I don't agree.


> > I can walk into Barnes and Noble today and purchase a trade version
> > of a geometry text for $25. The very same (or similar) content in a
> > commercial textbook will cost *three to four times* that amount. Soo
> > where's your commercial 'efficiency'?
>
> My commercial efficiency is demonstrated *right there*, in your hands,
> that $25 book, as opposed to the $75-$100 book produced by a
> politicized and *proprietary* process.
----------------
Wrong. It proves that there is oligopolistic, cartel-like pricing going on
in the industry. You're completely missing the point of what needs to be
done to meet the *process, as it currently exists, on the ground, in
reality*, head on...find a way to merge with it, tactically explore how to
turn little steps into big ones, and then make something really big, and
permanent, happen. That thing (goal) is open source textbooks, not owned by
anyone, free to all who want to use them.

> > You ar completely misunderstanding my proposition. Would you like to
> > turn over the highways to private enterprise? How about medical care
> > (look what a great job private enterprise has done there)? How about
> > pharma (there's a really cool example of private enterprise creating
> > something that only the wealthy can afford).
>
> Yes, I think that all of those things should be privatized.  Next
> question?
-------------
Well, health care is already privatized, so where's all the advantage from
the marketplace?

What amuses me about this, is the seeming naivte about the 'purity' of
economic stance that's taken here, with no sense of how private markets
really work - on the ground. In a way, what you're proposing is very
socialistic, only you don't see it that way. There appears to be a sense
that if open source puts up the content, and the private sector is allowed
to compete (using that content), that the most perfect scenario arises,
relative to pricing that content. Are you a betting man? It ain't gonna work
that way. Human beings don't *behave* with perfect efficiency (Economics
401 - Consumer Behavior). Markets are messy.

> > What I am saying, is that we will see (counterintuitively), some
> > price inefficiencies rising from that.
>
> Which is why you propose a state takeover of the textbook business.
>
> You say that you don't, but then you turn around and say that you do.
--------
Read my posts. Take my (experienced, been there, done that) word for it, or
not.

It's unfortunate that you're portraying what I've done as 'socialistic',
'stupid', horrific', etc.


> > Now, there might be ways to deal with those inefficiencies. Maybe we
> > help the adopting states by finding our own publishers, who are
> > willing to state (via contract) up front that they will not charge
> > over a certain raw cost percentage of the content. There are many
> > (hypothetical, at present) ways to deal with this.
>
> Why do we need to do that, it doesn't make any sense to do that.
>
> I don't think you've thought this through very well at all.
-----------
Frankly Jimbo, all evidence to the contrary appears to indicate that you're
more guilty of that, than I.
I'm really sorry that you continue to portray things that way.

> Consider: we create a textbook, call it "Wikimedia: 9th Grade American
> History".  We get it accepted, as a paper text, by the committee.  If
> the committee is corrupt (bribed) or whatever, and refuses to consider
> it, then that's a big problem, and your lobbying should focus strongly
> on that.
>
> But once it's accepted, then the "Wikimedia: 9th Grade American
> History" will easily outcompete all the other textbooks on price,
> because it can and will be produced by highly competitive low cost
> printers.  We've removed the proprietary 'edge'.  And if those
> low cost printers make big profits, all the better!
--------------
I said it above, I'll say it again. There *has* to be a superstructure, an
*organization* that *services* the content, and the problems around the
physical production and distribution of the books. That what COSTP proposes
the states do.

> > With due respect (and I mean that), you are illustrating a complete
> > ignorance of the textbook publishing business. The "print" side of the
> > business is very competitive, because the barriers to entry are very low
> > (more economics).
>
> Right, that's what I've been trying to explain to you.
------------
Again, read what I've written. It's not *just* about price. It's about who
can produce the 'best' material, service that material (on demand),
continually improve that material (on demand, open source could handle
this), and get the material in front of prospective districts to promote it
for use. The open source community can't do all these things.

> > The content side is *not* competitive, because there is essentially
> > a private content publishing cartel, owned by just a few publishing
> > giants.
>
> Right, and that's where we come in.
-----------
We agree.

> You see, I do understand this business, and I understand what open
> source can do for it, better than you think.
>
> I just don't think you've thought through the implications of what
> you're advocating.
--------
I have thought this through, in the kind of detail that has overcome
objections form legislators, education busreaucreats, private printers, and
others. I've worked the system hard (with no laudits, or compensation, I
don't care about those things in thhis endeavor).

Many people within the state, and within the open source community agree
with what I've proposed. Private philanthrpists are looking into funding a
pilot.

COSTP has been thought through from the ground, up - by someone(s) [me, and
others who have 'been there'] who know what will work, what's practical
(practical being defined as what will work once the curriculum is
published), and how all this can be put together to have the largest impact,
rather than a small, marginalized effort that makes a few hits, and misses,
failing to take hold because it's working from a stance that's *outside* and
*contrary to* the 'way things work'. There's probably the combined total of
50 years of intellectual capital in this thing, coming from people who are
expert on all sides of the issue, including the open source community.

We can help each other. It's up to you if you want to continue.

Sanford


> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l