[okfn-advisory] critique of OKCon

[Jo Walsh]

On 06/07/2011 00:03, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> I saw it on Twitter. I was not only puzzled by the article, but
> surprised at the support he got from commenters. I still don't really
> get it (I don't know him) and maybe he makes a thing out of criticising
> certain types of activity and generates a community of like minds.

Have reasons to resist being labelled a World of Warcraft warrior!

Left a comment anyway, collating some of yours, responding to some 
previous, probably won't make much difference to the OP. He also left a 
query for PMR:

"However, since you’ve raised the question I’ld like to have some 
clarity from you/the OKF as to whether they see “Open” data/knowledge as 
a “public” or a “private good” in the terms pointed to by Parminder Jeet 
Singh in an earlier comment to this blogpost? By this I mean is 
“openness” as you folks interpret it a characteristic to be enjoyed (or 
“consumed”) by an individual in his private capacity (based on his 
individual means for accessing and making use of the “open” 
data/knowledge etc.) OR is “openness” something that is to be enjoyed 
(or “consumed”) by the “public” in which case in addition to ensuring 
the “openness” of the data/knowledge etc. there is an obligation to 
ensure that the conditions and pre-conditions for such broad based 
public enjoyment and use are also associated with the open 
data/knowledge etc."

Strange question, but the sort of thing the Open Science/Scholarship 
type declarations could usefully answer. Don't think a closed list is 
the right place to work on one. Argh, sorry, i should just filter out 
*lists.okfn.org for a few months til i gain more perspective :(