[okfn-discuss] about open access but not open access

Sat May 4 23:22:45 UTC 2013

Hi,

The general point of being pragmatic stands. Everyone should use their best
discretion and judgment to make effective decisions while considering what
is best for our goals. There should be no dogmatic absolute rules. There
needs to be guidelines and respect for the overall mission of more
free/libre/open things in general.

On a more specific point: note that publishing in multiple places is
possible. An article could be published in a non-open-access journal if the
journal has no strict exclusivity requirement. Then the same article or a
variation could be published for free/libre/open access as well.

Cheers,
Aaron
Snowdrift.coop

--
Aaron Wolf
wolftune.com

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:24 PM, martin biehl <odmartin at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> first post, so go easy on me...
>
> The question I want to reiterate is whether proponents of open access
> should publish in non-open access ways like the book linked to by the OP.
>
> IN the end I think what matters is that open access becomes as widespread
> as possible (if you like open access that is, but we all do here, don't we)
> now if non-open access publications reach people that are not reached by
> open access ones, it could be detrimental to the goal to not use these
> distribution channels. On the other hand the open access channels need as
> much support as possible and publishing through non-open access ones might
> hurt them. So it does not seem to be clear cut to me. Or am I to dense to
> see the light?
>
> Cheers!
>
> martin
>
>
> 2013/5/4 Marc Joffe <marc at publicsectorcredit.org>
>
>> William
>>
>> Thanks for your well-considered comments.  Microsoft tools generate open
>> formats such as CSV and XML, so the concern listed in your second
>> paragraph
>> is not applicable to my effort.  I can use Excel to gather data and then
>> migrate that data to MySQL without in any way compromising the open data
>> nature of my work. I certainly agree that if a purportedly open project
>> uses
>> a proprietary format thereby compelling users to buy software to see the
>> results, that the project is not truly open.
>>
>> I want to explain to the list why I feel so strongly about this and why
>> you
>> may get the impression that I am making a moral argument.  I used to work
>> with financial modeling tools and data sets at a rating agency.  As you
>> know, rating agencies and financial models were blamed for the deep
>> recession that started in 2008. I believe that if the models and data had
>> been more open, they could have been subject to a wider peer review and
>> thus
>> could have become more effective.
>>
>> In 2011, I came across the book Macrowikinomics, which talked about
>> applications of wiki technology to various industries including finance.
>> The
>> book spent a few pages favorably discussing a new firm called Open Models
>> Valuation Company (http://www.omvco.com), which was going to open up the
>> world of financial modeling. I was excited to learn about this innovation
>> and immediately contacted the company. Eventually a representative got
>> back
>> to me.  During our chat, he advised me that the company had not published
>> any open source models and did not intend to do so.
>>
>> This seems to me a case of false advertising, and thus worthy of
>> criticism.
>> Open software and data can address many of society's problems - including
>> bad credit models.  Organizations that talk the talk of openness, and then
>> fail to walk the walk should be called out by this community.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Marc
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Waites [mailto:ww at styx.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 1:09 PM
>> To: okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org; marc at publicsectorcredit.org
>> Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] about open access but not open access
>>
>> On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:20:52 -0700, "Marc Joffe"
>> <marc at publicsectorcredit.org> said:
>>
>>     > What tools one uses to
>>     > assemble the open data is not important (as long as the tools'
>>     > licenses do not restrict distribution of the work product).
>>
>> Marc, I don't have a strong opinion about whether one should only write
>> open
>> access things about open access. I think the moral argument is a bit silly
>> -- the justification should be that if you want your work to matter, to be
>> built upon, it has to be accessible. In scientific and quasi-scientific
>> disciplines where reproducability of results matters, the whole process
>> must
>> be open otherwise if nobody can try the same experiment and come up with
>> the
>> same results, it might all have been made up. No need for moral arguments
>> (which tend to get people's backs up anyways).
>>
>> Now, the tools do matter. Because it means that without using those tools,
>> which I may not have access to (I don't),  I can't check your work. This
>> means I have to trust that you didn't make any errors in creating the
>> data,
>> and if I do find errors I can't easily fix them in a way that maintains
>> the
>> integrity of the process. This is very important. Otherwise the open data
>> comes out of a black box and we have no way of knowing what it means or to
>> what extent it can be relied upon.
>>
>> -w
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> okfn-discuss mailing list
>> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20130504/39d25e30/attachment.html>