[open-science] [Open-access] Open Science Anthology published

Graham Triggs grahamtriggs at gmail.com
Mon Jan 27 20:40:12 UTC 2014

Well, Heather, there may be an interesting distinction there in how your
derivative is incorrect.

Under CC-BY, if you've modified the work (such as inserting a zero), then
you are required to state that the work has been modified (and even
indicate how). Failure to do so would be a breach of the license.

Furthermore, creating a derivative from a trusted source does not magically
imbue the derivative with trustworthiness. Nobody should ever be trusting a
derivative more than the level of review and checking that the derivative
itself has received.

And in the case of not pre-authorized derivatives, how many derivatives are
authorized based on checking the content of the derivative? In many cases,
it will simply be a purchased right, for a fee.

I have to agree with Mark. The biggest danger with misquoting /
misrepresenting work does not come from pre-authorizing derivatives, it
comes from not being able to check the original source. Whilst that does
not specifically require CC-BY, it does need a minimum of free distribution
and reading. And as that needs to be at least by the time a derivative
appears, it needs / might as well be immediate, and CC-BY,


On 27 January 2014 16:06, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>wrote:

>  hi Mark,
>  The point with respect to the potential for incorrect derivatives has to
> do with derivatives per se rather than how the derivatives are licensed.
> Any license that permits derivatives could just as easily permit incorrect
> derivatives as correct ones. My point is that there are valid scholarly
> reasons for hesitation about granting blanket permission to create
> derivatives.
>  best,
>  Heather Morrison
>  On 2014-01-27, at 10:44 AM, Mark MacGillivray <mark at cottagelabs.com>
>  wrote:
>  I can't let this particular piece of misinformation slip by. Just as
> well I have access to this discussion so that I, and others, may correct
> you.
> On 27 Jan 2014 14:49, "Heather Morrison" <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
> wrote:
> >
> > Another reason why I think scholars and funding agencies alike should
> hesitate before demanding CC-BY is the potential for derivatives to cause
> harm through the spread of misinformation. My understanding of the study of
> toxicology is that a common saying, for good reason, is that the difference
> between a drug and a poison is a dose. Unleashing the creativity involved
> with automated derivatives may have benefits, but if a doctor is relying on
> a derivative that inserted a zero in the wrong place, the result could be
> death. Note that I am not demanding that derivatives be forbidden, rather
> suggesting that there are substantive reasons for hesitation about
> requiring that all scholarly works permit derivatives on a blanket basis.
> Your argument here has absolutely nothing to do with cc-by, and everything
> to do with quality of research and the ability to assess and correct it and
> to make it appropriate for consumption by particular user communities.
> You can tell by the fact that your example postulates an incorrect cc-by
> derivative and implies it is comparable to a non-cc-by but correct
> derivative. Thus you implicitly assume, and obfuscate from your reader the
> option to independently judge, that all non-cc-by works can somehow be
> taken to be correct by virtue of their license condition.
> However I could already take a piece of your work, regardless of license
> condition (and I could pay to access it if necessary), and write my own
> work with reference to and reliance upon yours. But my own work could be
> quality, or terrible, or purposeful fraud. I could succeed in publishing my
> new work under any form of copyright I desire, and in a highly reputable
> and expensive journal.
> My point being, you can spread misinformation as much as you like,
> regardless of copy rights.
> So the choice is, would you rather make it easier or harder for others to
> access and independently verify your claims?
> I would further argue that if particular forms of copy right are capable
> of imbuing quality as your argument suggests, despite the fact that nowhere
> do the definitions of any form of copy right make guarantees as to the
> quality of works to which they are attached, then the very concept of copy
> right is inappropriate for application to scholarly works.
> Mark
>  >
> > Now to explain just how fortunate Bjoern and others in his situation
> are:
> >
> > If your university and research are 100% publicly funded, then I would
> suggest that this is a special case. I would argue that this should be the
> norm - I favour fully publicly funded higher education. However, in much of
> the world this is not the case.
> >
> > Some reading:
> >
> > Denhart, Chris. Forbes July 2013: how the $1.2 trillion college debt
> crisis is crippling students, parents and the economy:
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-the-college-debt-is-crippling-students-parents-and-the-economy/
> >
> > Freeman, Sunny, July 2013 Huffington Post Canada: Student Debt Canada:
> Post-Grads Delay Adult Life, Struggle with Payments, TD says:
> >
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/07/24/student-debt-canada-_n_3646153.html
> >
> > TD is Toronto Dominion, a very conservative Canadian bank. This is
> Forbes and TD explaining that student debt is a huge issue.
> >
> > In Canada and the US student debt is non-forgivable; it cannot be
> discharged in bankruptcy, no matter what. I argue that we are in effect
> asking the next generation to take on this burden to "invest" in their
> education then sign off on trade deals that have the effect of eliminating
> a large portion of the high-paying jobs for which they were investing. This
> is why I suggest that students, at least in North America, are in effect
> subsidizing both universities and taxpayers. For example, in the case of
> research, there are many grad students taking on a huge debt load some will
> never recover from in order to do research in the public interest.
> >
> > North America is not unique, however. For example, see this article from
> the Guardian on the desperate situation of universities in Greece:
> >
> > Smith, Helena, September 25, 2013. Austerity measures push Greek
> universities to point of collapse.
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/25/austerity-measures-push-greek-universities-collapse
> >
> > Meanwhile, in the UK:
> >
> > Malik, Shiv. November 25, 2013. The Guardian. Poorest students face
> £350m cut in grants.
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/nov/22/poorest-students-face-350m-cuts
> >
> > The cuts to student funding in the UK are particularly troubling to me
> in the context of UK's publisher-friendly open access policy. It strikes me
> that the UK is more concerned with the health of publisher profits than the
> prospects of the UK's own next generation.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Heather Morrison
> > Assistant Professor
> > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
> > University of Ottawa
> > 613-562-5800 ext. 7634
> > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
> > Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-access mailing list
> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
> >
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20140127/b2bb464a/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list