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