Make it Free to Read

A Research Outcome
The Open Access movement has convincingly transformed my awareness and thinking about the Internet as a vital public knowledge space.  At the outset of my research, I was primarily interested in the increased gating of content with subscription fees on the one hand and the growing global demand for freely accessed information on the other, as the success of Wikipedia suggests.  I set out to investigate the success of Wikipedia, assessing its quality, and identifying ways of using the site as an information literacy tool.

Yet when Climategate undermined traditional peer-reviewed processes of authority and the issue of Open Access to public research as a concerted movement in academic publishing and governmental transparency gained coverage in the media, my research concern evolved into information or knowledge space as a public good.  I support the Open Access mandate for a public knowledge space for government transparency and authoritative research as a vital public good.

In Support of Open Access

The case became evident to me as a summative experience of researching the various threads in my blog posts:

1. investigating open access content such as Wikipedia and learning of its improving reliability with use.
2. Lisbet Rausing's The New Republic article, "Towards a New Alexandria" on opening up scholarship locked in libraries in order to maintain relevance.
3. news of Climategate demonstrating what can go wrong with traditional peer-reviewed methods of authority when a few scientists take control of data and keep it from the public.

Prior to my research, I was unaware of the Open Access movement in academia, so I was interested to interview a SJSU librarian and learn that the University has made considerable progress towards Open Access.  The SJSU Academic Senate approved the Sense of the Senate Resolution in support of Open Access for scholarly works and research on April 19, 2010.

Alliance for Taxpayer Access

One of the primary supporters of the bill is the Alliance for Taxpayer Access.  They are a non-profit coalition of libraries working to create a more open system for the exchange of scholarly research results. According to their website, they are committed to the following four principles: 

1. American taxpayers are entitled to open access on the Internet to the peer-reviewed scientific articles on research funded by the U.S. Government.
2. Widespread access to the information contained in these articles is an essential, inseparable component of our nation's investment in science.
3. This and other scientific information should be shared in cost-effective ways that take advantage of the Internet, stimulate further discovery and innovation, and advance the translation of this knowledge into public benefits.
4. Enhanced access to and expanded sharing of information will lead to usage by millions of scientists, professionals, and individuals, and will deliver an accelerated return on the taxpayers' investment.

Even more, there is now real momentum in Washington to make Open Access a law to conform to the Obamba administration's call for government transparency and increased Internet access.
The following is an excerpt from Alliance's April 15, 2010 press release:   

Congress takes another stride toward public access to research

Federal Research Public Access Act introduced in the House of Representatives

Washington, DC – Fueling the growing momentum toward openness, transparency, and accessibility to publicly funded information, the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2010 (FRPAA) has been introduced today in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) and a bi-partisan host of co-sponsors. The proposed bill would build on the success of the first U.S. mandate for public access to the published results of publicly funded research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and require federal agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100 million or more to provide the public with online access to research manuscripts stemming from funded research no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

. . .

Like the Senate bill introduced in 2009 by Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Cornyn (R-TX), H.R. 5037 would unlock unclassified research funded by agencies including: Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

[. . . view more]

My Will and My Helmet

"But in war, the desire to move in the direction of fact as we want it to be and to move quickly is overwhelming.  Nothing will ever appease this desire except a consciousness of fact as everyone is at least satisfied to have it be." -Wallace Stevens

After reading Locke Carter's argument for writing hypertext in a non-sequential world, I have decided to build my website as a hypertext archive of Captain W.F. Overhulser's war correspondence and photography for the Veteran's History Project based on my technical literacy autobiography.  My Grandfather's historical archive of hundreds of letters and pictures from WWII taken as part of the 2rd Armored Division's push through Europe presents a non-glorified portrait of war.

Beyond his dedication to service at a time of need, his fascination with communication technology is a part of his story.  I have deep affection for my grandparents and their profound impact on both my traditional and technical literacies. The Veteran's History Project is a project of the American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress where written and oral histories of  American War Veterans are preserved to better understand the realities of war.

This is a project I have wanted to attend to for some time.  In addition to letters and photographs, I have a number of artifacts from the period such as war ration books, Stars and Stripes Newspapers, and postcards.

I also volunteered out at the Livermore Veteran's Hospital before returning to school, and I understand the need to archive stories before they are gone. My family will appreciate that William means "Will" and "Helmet," both literally and figuratively, and also understand the irony of Grandpa Bill serving the "Hell on Wheels Division" as a peaceful "Man of Cloth."

The Futility of Stopping Time

Research writing is a futile endeavor to stop time long enough to capture a moment.  Yet time never stops.  New events or ideas continue.  When an event impacts your line of inquiry and research, you have to take note.  It is both fortuitous and unfortunate at the same time.  It can be a breakthrough moment that pulls together strands of thought in a new way with added insight.  Yet, it also creates a troubling loop when a deadline approaches.

I experienced that double sensation while I was drafting my research paper.  A breaking news event seemed to "fall into my lap" that made me think about my topic with renewed vigor.  What I believed was a  well constructed argument took on additional meaning and gathered new shape.  I thoroughly enjoyed this fact.  It made the task of researching and drafting considerably more pleasurable.  It also meant that I  increased my workload and did not get to the main point of my paper yet.  I'll take it though.  I am really energized as I approach my final draft.  I wish all writing was this delightful.

Another Timely Event

A sincere tip of the hat to Dr. Gabor.  Thanks to her librarian contact, Bernd Becker, I have expanded my research paper.  The process of writing to Bernd helped me clarify my argument and address open questions that were bothering me.  I asked Bernd about the open-access part of the issue between open-access vs verifiable content.  I will be meeting with him on Friday.  The King Library is also hosting an open-access forum on Monday that I will attend.  You fellow students in class have all heard my open-access spiel, so I'm really enthused.  Thank you Dr. Gabor.  Although I sense a serious lack of  sleep; my body still operates on the clock.

The Debate over Quantity vs. Quality: "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

Nicholas Carr's Atlantic article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" presents a polarizing view of the effect of immediate 24/7 internet access connectivity.  The usefulness of the internet is central to the question of open access versus authoritative and verifiable content--the problem of content quantity vs. content quality. The spirited responses to the article by Clay Shirky and Larry Sanger are captured on the Edge's Reality Club blog.  Clay Shirky and the open access individuals see the question in terms of filter failure, not necessarily information overload.  Information is going to continue to grow, so avenues to manage content become important.  He gives a good talk on journalism and the public good, and why pay walls do not serve the public, in contrast to Steve Brill who is trying to leverage government to seek an antitrust exemption for media pricing.  Larry Sanger argues for a more authoritative and verifiable approach to content containment.  He argues that our "grasp and respect of reliable information suffers" at the hands of too much opinion and not enough verifiable content.  He is not suggesting open discourse is not welcome, but he believes expertise and professionalism is necessary.

The question of content quality has broad ramifications in many areas such as government, politics, news information, and others.  The debate over content quality seems to break into the two competing paradigms of amateurs vs. professionals that the Wikipedia founders split into.  Laws and copyrights protections for professionals do not necessarily square with amateur participation.  Interestingly, Nature magazine did a peer-reviewed study of science entries on both Wikipedia and Britannica and found that they both had "similar degrees of accuracy in their content."  In an effort to narrow my argument, I may look to education as an area where verifiable content is essential.

Opening Up Academia

Brun argues in Chapter 13 "Educating Produsers, Produsing  Education" that academic institutions must lead change with some combination of traditional and new approaches.  Academic publishing and peer-review are already well established processes.  Brun suggests that institutions may have to shift their emphasis from in-house development and production to include the service of quality assurance both internally and externally.  He cites the examples of the science communities' sucessful open source projects.

Unloading the Wife and Keeping the Mistress

*The following is not part of a class assignment.  I was exploring how other types of writing appeared on the page.

After a carefully considered plot, we unloaded the “wife” and “mistress.” Got rid of her straight out—sold her in a crass bidding war at the top of the market—like a demeaning pirate hocking her ‘larboard side’. The archaic etymology doesn’t matter near as much as its emotional content. And my love of all things Darwin including our beagle named after the Voyage demands the connection. Larboard refers to the port side of a merchant vessel on which they are loaded. Apparently calling out larboard in the wind sounded too much like starboard, so the Captain of Darwin’s HMS Beagle, Robert FitzRoy, taught his crew to use the term port side instead of larboard, and the use of port side officially replaced larboard in Navy vernacular. The best part is that the larboard side is marked by a red navigation light at night. How loaded it that—and here we were selling off my entanglement.

Unlike Anne Fadimen in her familiar essay on “Moving,” I did get into bed with our “weekend country home.” Ours was a clerestory ski chalet among the “Big Trees.” It was a full on love affair. As these tangled things go, I was ready to unload the “wife” long before I was ready to give up the “mistress.”

By strange coincidence with another of Fadimen's essays, we too inherited our “Piece of Cotton” with our new liaison. Perhaps Fadimen unearthed an unwritten rule that says the colors flown at one home should permanently remain as part of its provenance. We flew our flag whenever we were in residence with the lady. While my husband and I unloaded the car, the first thing the boys clamored to do was race to the closet to secure the flag to place on the deck railing. We were barely to the top of the stairs with our heavy loads, when the boys pushed past and set the door-harp a-tinkling in their race to be first. The warm tones of the harp string announced our arrival, but the flag signaled their own personal claim. We carried out the flag ritual for nearly seventeen years. I’m surprised no one looted the place when it was so clear when it would be safe. Gradually the time between door harp notes grew longer—their announcement barely specified a score—and capturing the flag became another outgrown blanket.

But like any lover who is not ready for the end, I held on to the fantasy the place inspired. The hiking, the fly-fishing, the skiing, the snowed in history-channel marathons, the roaring fire, the pine and the cedar, the eating and playing and talking out on the large deck, the summer creeks, and the reading. My beloved reading. Up early with a cup of coffee in my favorite chair while everyone slept in for hours. Oh, the glorious serenity that was all mine. Not a mom here, nor even a wife. No shoulds or musts competing for my attention. Just freedom and respite. Room to be. Where I in fact became more of a mom and more of a wife. Our second one may plug his ears to this fact, but I carefully constructed this affectionate nest…the inviting feather beds and turned down comforters…the giant redwood table for Yahtzee, Cribbage, and more…the hand-made bunk beds with my “transcendentalists” set alongside…my comfortable “come join me here” denim furniture bought before the trend…and the playful dark green carpet with domino dots of color inviting their tummy tracks. Yes, the cabin was my boundless place—my "Mother Road"—my inspired Route 66 stretching across the US.

Such thought and care went into the place that I became rather a pain about sharing it. Not to over do the whole lover trope, but I really did fuss over it. I loved everything from staining the deck to hammering the warped winter boards to selecting another book for my inner Muir. I meant to have people enjoying it, and I felt really generous at first. But when friends or relatives borrowed it and then broke things or took things and failed to arrange things the way I left them, I’m ashamed to admit that I quietly collapsed their calendar. It wasn’t just that their infractions added to my list of responsibilities; I felt betrayed like discovering some damned lipstick on a collar. I knew someone had been there, and they were diminishing my experience of the place. It irked me that they had time to enjoy it while I was busy with routine affairs.

I sensed my time with it was slipping. The roof was leaking they reported back to me. One forgot to turn off the water at the spigot a few days ago. Another just broke open the garage door after forgetting his key that my enthusiastic Dad made for every family member without my knowledge. The other that did remember his key broke it off in the door. No I didn’t know the coffee maker was broken. Adding insult, our boys were naturally growing interested in other commitments, and our beagle tethered my excitement. The cabin was losing its appeal. I sensed the end. Our oldest was going off to college soon, and the time was near. We had always planned to sell the cabin to pay for our boys’ college education.

Perhaps it explains why I broke down in “blubbery” tears when the new couple who out-bid the others by a large margin—saying they loved the furniture and wanted the cabin just as it was and were willing to buy everything including the dishes—simply junked the flag at the end of the driveway atop their moving box refuse. How could this be? Didn’t they see the possibilities of the place held in the symbol they were tossing aside? After September 11, I had even driven up to the cabin to procure the flag to fly at home for a time after our national loss.  My attachment to the place and this symbol-of-my-affection was so strong that I was unprepared for their callous disregard. I broke down into heaving tears. The soul-turned-inside-out type normally reserved for the loss of a loved one.

I was uncharacteristically mad. I did the whole scorned bit. I refused to turn over my favorite pieces of furniture. I threatened to not sign the final deal. We thought we had arranged a proper transfer like we received when we first bought the cabin from another family who had to sell it because their daughter had cancer. We promised to honor their home and make it a happy place. I wanted that ritual too—I felt I needed it to let go—not this top bid hustle. I hadn’t yet understood the college good byes that were complicating the mess. But I sensed their approach. The loss seemed a double blow. While the sale made our son’s college education affordable, and I do not begrudge that for a single moment, it also marked the end of his needing me to help him zip into his fat snowsuit, to warm his sore frozen fingers in my hands, or to tuck him in with Twain’s Book for Bad Boys and Bad Girls. I was utterly unprepared for this loss.

In Class Notes on Research Plan

I am interested in Tim Berners-Lee call to authenticate or verify web information. I wonder what type of systems are being devised, and I wonder how verifiability effects the collaborative community.

What types of systems of verifiability are being proposed?

• peer-review processes to authenticate data
• publication standards
• library standards

Brun's Plump Sets of Human Knowledge

If Bolter gives us the historical perspective of organizing knowledge in traditional forms of production such as the library and encyclopedias, then Axel Brun in chapter 6 “The Palimpsest of Human Knowledge: Wikipedia and Beyond” evaluates the online forms of knowledge that account for the community aspect of creating and maintaining knowledge.

Brun gives a thorough discussion of the changing approaches to content that result from “produsage” communities such as Wikipedia that create and participate in content as well as police or maintain it.  He argues that fixing content into a stable form that is typical of traditional production models undermines the community presence and dynamism of Wikipedia.  The value of “produsage” communities comes from the process of discussion that includes the systematic rules and regulations as well as the community’s enactment and interpretation.

Brun argues that the process of re-mediating the content functions like a historical palimpsest of an overwritten document that carries traces of prior versions.  Yet this over-writing process also fundamentally changes the relationships between text creators and users.  The territory of knowledge is now fluid and changeable without fixed positions or canons of knowledge.

Governance

Brun then discusses the inherent problems that arise from these new knowledge territories.  The first is the question of administrative and community governance.  The shift from hierarchical administration to ad hoc forms of community governance is a product of keeping their structures openly accessible to maximize community participation.

Accreditation

The problem with maximizing community participation then becomes the problem of accrediting users and creators of content.  Brun argues that if Wikipedia and "produsage" forms do not want to appear as anarchic chaos then authors expertise or content evaluation forms may need to be included rather than relying on content source alone such as the way some foreign sites already incorporate into their structure.

Towards and Against Stability

The evaluation of content and contributors then begins to look more like stable forms of production.  Brun argues that stable release models of open source software design provide a working analogy to remediate instability.  However, as "produsage" acts like more stable production, then casual collapse can happen as corporate production takes over.

Finally Brun addresses other open forms of knowledge on the internet such as travel discussion, opinion content and the like.  He argues that the Web is the ultimate open participation network, and the smaller communities of Wikipedia or these other collaborative content forms alter the conception of knowledge to include the deliberative processes as well.