Launch of The Open Library of Humanities

the sum of all human knowledge,
its not just a saying, and for it to have any real meaning it must be open for all to access.

Everywhere we go we create or share knowledge via our networks of communication; the internet has helped us all see its concrete effects on our everyday lives. The next issue is to decide how open access to knowledge ought to be — it's a pressing concern for Higher Education institutions with far wider social implications for us all.

scoop.co.nz

in our quest for knowledge, to improve the human condition, we should not have to jump through hoops to learn our calling in life.

putting a pay wall in front of people to hold hostage knowledge is like caging a mind.

if humanity is going to travel into the future we all must hold a ticket.

knowledge is like a candle… when one candle lights the other, it does not diminish from the light of the first

— Thomas Jefferson

i would like to point out that collectively we can over come anything,
individually we are abstracted by the requirements of life,

i would like it if they called it "the Aaron Swartz Open Library of Humanities"
in honour of a true genius that recognised that information should be free,
he was vindicated after death in that his ideas are going to be the future of knowledge.

Welcome to the initial ideas hub for the Open LIbrary of Humanities (OLH): a project exploring a PLOS-style model for the humanities and social sciences. This site aims to give the background to and rationale for such a project along with an initial call for participants so that we can put a team together in Spring 2013. As a preliminary statement: we are not affiliated in any way with PLOS. This website will be used for the preliminary stages of developing the organisational structure of OLH, as we launch as a not-for-profit company, and in the run-up to launching the actual journal and database.

www.openlibhums.org...

pay walls to scholarly articles are ignorant and short sighted and do not serve the community or humanity,
other than to line the pockets of a few greedy individuals.

how can culture flourish when there are chains to progress made from greed brought about by claims of ownership

any idea of sufficient value to society, should not be held hostage to the wants of an individual.

this is the start of the future.

The concept of an Open Library of Humanities follows on from the principles of common good and public knowledge; it asserts that publically-funded research should be free to access for the user and open to all to view, search and examine.

an open world is a world where we all share knowledge openly and for free.

creative commons is for the wealth of culture and society
creativecommons.org...

i share my ideas openly because i believe only together can we solve the problems facing the world, today and in the future

xploder

Okay, my opinion on this is that the more knowledge everyone in humanity has, the more humanity will produce intellectually, which will benefit everyone - why would anyone want to stifle humanities growth by purposefully sabotaging access to information?

Isn't it a better idea for the universities to adapt so they can provide something that can't be learned online?

reply to post by darkbake


Revolutionizing sectors doesn't happen often. It is counterintuitive to the concept of "fiduciary responsibility", a cornerstone of corporate structure.

The Iphone would represent an example of exceptions to this concept, as they utilized the revolution to establish market penetration overnight. Since then, they have doled out insignificant improvement after insignificant improvement, all to great gyrations of public sensation and mania.

This is the way business works. And universities are businesses, be assured. incremental, small steps meant to keep the public attention through satiation of the short attention spans that pretty much all animals possess (neural connections decay over time, making frequent contact, or spaced repetition the best mode of maintaining engagement).

If you force any industry to revolutionize itself, it could lead to instability. The plans and budgets become less accurate, and it impacts investor confidence.

It just isn't the way business works. Be it good or bad.

reply to post by XPLodER

the sum of all human knowledge

Explain to me again why it should be accessible to everyone.

Putting a pay wall in front of people to hold hostage knowledge is like caging a mind.

Explain to me how those who put knowledge before the public are to be compensated for their pains.

If humanity is going to travel into the future we all must hold a ticket.

Everybody already holds a ticket to the future. Should everybody expect to travel first class?

Pay walls to scholarly articles are ignorant and short sighted and do not serve the community or humanity,
other than to line the pockets of a few greedy individuals.

Those would be the greedy individuals who brought you that knowledge in the first place, correct?

Greed brought about by claims of ownership...

Any idea of sufficient value to society, should not be held hostage to the wants of an individual.

This is the crux of it. Another Socialist wanting to help himself without payment to the fruits of others' labour.

The Open Library of Humanities is not a bad idea; PeerJ may be an even better one. But not for these simplistic, demagogic reasons.

reply to post by Astyanax



To be fair.....

....there is a such thing as a "reasonable price". Often that is exceeded. I would classify just about all college education in this category.

I create many things. The things my job compensates me for are the companies for the taking. The things that I am not compensated for I give away freely. I have created databases and call center forecasting tools for friends working for other companies that those companies still use today. I gave this of my own free will. It improved this friends life, and in the long term benefitted the other company.

I have designed some logos for a few small corporations and non profits. Not a penny recieved for this because none was requested.

There is far too much credence put into the idea of compensation. I make enough from my job to keep me needs met. Anything else I produce is typically given to the world freely, as my compensation is the pleasure of its creation.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

We are not in disagreement. There's a good case to be made that scientific publishing has fallen into the hands of profiteers, and if open-access publishing is shown to be viable, it will make the profiteers think twice. However the Socialist rhetoric of the OP is nothing less than an attack on the whole concept of intellectual property.

You sell your intellectual property to an employer in exchange for a monthly income and other benefits. I sell mine to individual businesses in the freelance market. Scientists are compensated by universities and research foundations for the research they do, and these paymasters share the property rights to this knowledge. The OP would take it from all of us and put it in the public domain, without considering how any of us is to be compensated.

You choose freely to give away some of the fruits of your knowledge. Could you still have done that if you didn't have a generous employer who pays you enough for some of your work to allow you to give the rest of it away for nothing?

Your decision to donate your intellectual property to others is admirable. It is also, as it should be, your decision. The OP is trying to make that decision for you, and for the rest of us.

reply to post by Astyanax

The OP would take it from all of us and put it in the public domain, without considering how any of us is to be compensated.

You (ed. our hypothetical scientist?] choose freely to give away some of the fruits of your knowledge.

Right, Astyanax, but where did 'you' get the material that he/she based their material on? Do we assume that 'you' has financially compensated those who's shoulders he/she has stood upon.

I agree that our reasons need to be boiled down and clarified, and I think that you would like to help, but I don't think that the pay to play model for education is the best way to go about 'science'. I think that Ross Ashby would have agreed.

So what do we do about this? Even as a student I have not been able to find a suitable way of joining JSTOR, and it pisses me off when I see what I need on the screen, right there, and I can't lay hands on it. It gives me evil thoughts.

A freely accessible digital library of all of mankind's knowledge would be great. That could be done right now with all the information that is common domain and not under copyright. Not all information would be available and we would have information that is not current, but that collection of knowledge would continue to increase with every expired copyright. Giving copyrights and patients to the common domain could be made into a tax write off. Ben Franklin gave away important invention patients freely to humanity, the lighting rod is one we still use.

reply to post by Astyanax


"intellectual property" is a bastardized concept.

Lets take symbols. Like trademarked symbols.

If i walk up the street, I am accosted by Nike Swoosh marks. It is on billboards, peoples clothing and shoes, on busses, shop window signs (emblazoned in bright orange so as to be unseemly and distracting). They have chosen to become part of my environment. I am unable to avoid seeing their symbol, it is everywhere I turn. Part of my environment. Should you be able to trademark trees? Or birds?

Music is the same. Every car driving by, cell phones, advertisements.....

Let me ask you....if i painted an image of a scene where a billboard with a big Nike Swoosh was in it, and began marketing it to great revenues.....would I not be sued by Nike? For painting an image of my environment that they helped create?

How is that right and just?

Current concepts of intellectual property are actually protection for individuals resting on their laurels. So you create a cool design for something. Why should, once I know and understand that design, not be allowed to reproduce it? How many cool patents sit on the shelf, never used? yet, if someone knows how to utilize that patent....they aren't allowed? No one else is using it....how is that harming anyone, when they already had the opportunity to use that idea and chose not to?

I fully believe in giving credit where credit is due. It is why a smart inventor would make solid contracts before releasing the information into the world, where it becomes part of our collective knowledge.

I am really just becoming familiar with the debate around open access.

For those that have not checked it out, the whole ordeal involving Aaron Swartz, JSTOR and Swartz's suicide is a stunner, and a good way to wade in to the mess.

If you go to this WikiPedia entry about Swartz, you can scroll down to the JSTOR case...

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for an eye-opening thread, OP.

reply to post by XPLodER


I love the idea of free information and knowledge. I always said "I only have approximately 75 years on this earth to figure it all out"

I am someone that wants to know everything yesterday! FREE KNOWLEDGE - BRING IT ALL ON!!!

reply to post by Astyanax


you have a very simplistic view of the problems

This is the crux of it. Another Socialist wanting to help himself without payment to the fruits of others' labour.

you drag out the idea of socialism, almost as a knee jerk reaction,

i am not socialist, the idea of you sitting behind a computer calling me that is absurd,

i am a scientist, one who learned most of the knowledge i now hold from "other" scientists,
who in turn learned their knowledge from other scientists that preformed experiments on equipment designed by previous scientists.

without scientists GIVING their knowledge to the world, we would not have that knowledge to use in future discoveries and inventions.

most people who think they created the world, or single handily created some product, usually forget all the scientists who "gave" their knowledge for them to have the ability to do so.

the copyright clause of the US Constitution, was designed to promote the useful arts FOR THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY AND CULTURE, was Madison a socialist?

you trot out the well used notion of being a creator of something, and your right to remuneration as a right,
when actually this is a privilege, not a right.

and then claim that the producers would be worse off without pay-walls,

so tell me oh wise one why do scientists have to agree to ONLY publish with one company?
why do scientists have to pay 2 thousand dollars to get published?
why do scientists have to sign away their rights to publish their own discoveries?
why is it that citations of published works are dropping on works behind pay walls?

HOW is this furthering the useful arts?

you try to confuse the issue by claiming you would somehow be disadvantaged by this library, or by the notion of public good.

have you ever published a peer reviewed paper?

if i was to look at the problem from a purely scientific angle, i would say that these pay walls DONT help advance science as mush as simply publicly publishing the documents into the commons for all to use, would do.

so in effect society and the useful arts would be better served WITHOUT these limits on sharing.

you do realise that the design and operation of the internet was a useful art, given freely to the world,
and because there was no pay-wall it has become ubiquitous in use.

so get off the internet it is clearly a socialistic invention and not to be used by a science hating world building capitalist like you, after all sharing of science is anti capitalistic right?

xploder

reply to post by Astyanax

This is the crux of it. Another Socialist wanting to help himself without payment to the fruits of others' labour.

knowledge is like a candle… when one candle lights the other, it does not diminish from the light of the first
— Thomas Jefferson

so was Thomas Jefferson a socialist?
what about einstien?

would you like me to quote half of the great minds in history?
or would you like to apologise?

xploder

reply to post by Astyanax

Pay walls to scholarly articles are ignorant and short sighted and do not serve the community or humanity,
other than to line the pockets of a few greedy individuals.

Those would be the greedy individuals who brought you that knowledge in the first place, correct?

you try to confuse those generating the knowledge, with this distributing knowledge,
if the scientists did all the work why is the pay walled publisher making all the money?

your arguments are very simple minded and do not cover the actualities of the problem.

the scientists PAY the cost of hosting the papers themselves,
the pay wallers don't contribute to the useful arts they tax them and slow down the scientific method

xploder

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I love the idea of free information and knowledge. I always said "I only have approximately 75 years on this earth to figure it all out"

I am someone that wants to know everything yesterday! FREE KNOWLEDGE - BRING IT ALL ON!!!

and the reward for your curiosity and hard work could be a benefit to humanity,
this is why we should not pay wall off knowledge,

who is to say the next Einstien is not to poor to pay for access to publications,
but smart enough to get internet access?

xploder

Originally posted by Bybyots
I am really just becoming familiar with the debate around open access.

For those that have not checked it out, the whole ordeal involving Aaron Swartz, JSTOR and Swartz's suicide is a stunner, and a good way to wade in to the mess.

If you go to this WikiPedia entry about Swartz, you can scroll down to the JSTOR case...

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for an eye-opening thread, OP.

thank you for adding quality to my thread

and yes that link is a good way to start to learn about the problem

star

xploder

Higher education institutions shouldn't be concerned with the accessibility of information, in fact they should promote it, opening much of their own restricted literature to the public.

Even if information is readily available and accessible to anyone with internet access, students will still require the professional and experienced guidance of those who have spent much of their life researching, studying and applying their studies in a certain area. Much of education is now based (especially for Law students for instance) on being able to research independently, applying the facts and interpreting information. This can only be acquired over time with guidance from mentors with superior knowledge in these areas.

The availability of information will only promote more people to enter higher education and provide Universities, technical schools and so forth with more students and thus more revenue, as although the knowledge they need is already readily available, guidance, interpretation, application and critical analysis of this knowledge is still required, which is extremely difficult to be self taught.

Thus the openness and increasing transparency of all facets of our life should be looked to positively, even by those institutions who fear it will damage their ability to profit. The only institutions that will be negatively affected by this are those which are malicious and attempt to undermine our society, biodiversity, natural infrastructure and humanity, such as the weapons manufacturers and agricultural companies like Monsanto.

reply to post by Bybyots

Right, Astyanax, but where did 'you' get the material that he/she based their material on? Do we assume that 'you' has financially compensated those who's shoulders he/she has stood upon.

Indeed you may. My education was paid for, at some sacrifice, by my parents. I buy the books I read, or borrow them from someone who has paid for them, and has therefore compensated the author. Any information I receive free of charge on the internet is paid for by the advertising, etc., that supports the site from which I gained it.

I don't think that the pay to play model for education is the best way to go about 'science'.

That could well be. Unfortunately, there is no better way presently available. Doing science is expensive, and somebody has to pay for it.

*

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

"Intellectual property" is a bastardized concept...

A smart inventor would make solid contracts before releasing the information into the world...

I think your views on this matter may be a little confused. If a concept (something intellectual) can be protected by a contract, how is it not property?

Current concepts of intellectual property are actually protection for individuals resting on their laurels. So you create a cool design for something. Why should, once I know and understand that design, not be allowed to reproduce it?

You may certainly do so, as long as you pay me for using what I have invented.

The Nike example is irrelevant. The 'swoosh' is a trademark, that is, a kind of identity. The law forbids its commercial use by anyone except the bearer of that identity. This is the equivalent of preventing someone from trading under a false name. You can paint as many swooshes as you like and put them up anywhere you please; as long as you don't use them for financial gain—or in a manner likely to cause financial loss to Nike—they cannot and will not sue you.

How many cool patents sit on the shelf, never used?

Patents with commercial viability? Very few, I imagine. Perhaps you could cite some examples.

*

reply to post by XPLodER

I am not socialist

I am reminded of the dozens of threads on this forum that begin, 'I am not racist, but...'

You propose to remove a means of production from private hands and place it in the hands of the public. That is the very definition of a socialist.

I am a scientist

What is your field? Who are your colleagues?

Have you ever published a peer-reviewed paper?

I'm not the one calling myself a scientist. Have you?

you trot out the well used notion of being a creator of something, and your right to remuneration as a right, when actually this is a privilege, not a right.

And you claim you're not socialist! Well, give us another word, then, for the idea that individuals are granted the 'privilege' of earning a livelihood by 'society'.

so tell me oh wise one why do scientists have to agree to ONLY publish with one company?
why do scientists have to pay 2 thousand dollars to get published?
why do scientists have to sign away their rights to publish their own discoveries?
why is it that citations of published works are dropping on works behind pay walls?

I agree that there is a problem. Your proposed solution will only make matters worse.

If scientists wish to publish their findings for the public good, they may do so without recourse to a scientific publisher. They can post things on the internet, self-fund publication of a monograph, or simply burn a few hundred CD-ROMs and send them to colleagues. Why don't they do this? Think about it.

so get off the internet it is clearly a socialistic invention and not to be used by a science hating world building capitalist like you, after all sharing of science is anti capitalistic right?

None of the above. Galileo, the first scientist, was also something of an entrepreneur. Newton was master of the Royal Mint. Science and money have always been close bedfellows. The world's most avowedly capitalist nation is also the world's leading scientific power. Private enterprise has funded some seminal scientific work, from which the whole world—not just the people who paid for it—have greatly benefited.

Time for my two cents.

I am not a scientist, i am not knowledgeable with thes laws, but it seems to me that the person called Astyanax is missing something, and at the same time, hitting the nail on the head.

What I think youre missing is this is the way it should be. In all actuality, this system should have been first and foremost when the oppurtunity in humanity arose. Instead, we have taken the path of monetary gain and ownership. Nobody owns anything. There is nothing tangible on this planet that you will or can take with you. Ideas, inventions, and concepts should be shared amongst those who could make the most use of it. Ie, if i built a better machine to purify water, then give it to the people who could make the most of it, The people responsible for providing clean water.

Youre right because it deals with the situation that we have now. We have invested and built up this system of ownership and control so much that it would most definitely be a radical shift. If you clean a hoarders house, with years of crap, the owner set in their ways, and everything piling up to the ceiling, you have to recognize the for the house to be clean and liveable again, you have to drag it all out, toss, organize, clean, and choose what to keep. For that to happen, its gotta get dirty, dragging all that out into the yard will make a mess, but its the road to a clean house. now apply that example to the ops idea.

The op has a fantastic idea. we are stunted spiritually, socially, mentally, and physically by the greed and fantastically explained laws we now have. We cannot restart humanity, Humanity has chosen its path. Before any part of your idea can be implemented, we have to clean the planet of the sinister minded people in charge so we can put positive, forward thinking people in the position to do real change.

Astyanax, it is my opinion that you are too caught up in the "way it is" to fathom "what it could be". I feel your posts towards the op are a little narrow, ignorant. It seems that you are an intelligent person from your writing so I ask, take a minute to just think about what the op is saying. Belay yourself for a min and just think about it. The whole goal for us is to overcome this concept of ownership, start sharing, and make a difference. If i make a filter for water that cleans sewage and turns it into perfectly fine drinking water, yes it is my idea. But ask this, what if my one idea could save millions and improve life? Would i be considered a murderer if I did not speak up with my idea and prevent such a loss? Should i be held accountable because i could make a difference? or should i demand monetary gain while people get dysentary and die? What if it was somebodies patented invention that i made to save lives? should i be held accountable as per the law even though i have the chance to make a difference?

Humanity should have gone a different direction. we should be living for eachother, not monetary gain and fame.

reply to post by mactheaxe

Astyanax, it is my opinion that you are too caught up in the "way it is" to fathom "what it could be".

You could well be right. I have read a great deal of history, have a strong interest in evolutionary biology, and (being a professional writer) am also rather well versed in psychology, both the textbook and practical aspects thereof. Understanding human nature and knowing that humans have always behaved consistently are, I suppose, good ways to be caught up in 'the way it is'.

I feel your posts towards the op are a little narrow, ignorant.

Could you be more specific, please? Just what is it I am ignorant of?

The whole goal for us is to overcome this concept of ownership, start sharing, and make a difference.

Why should this be the goal? Do you think there is something unnatural about the concept of ownership? Try taking away a dog's bone and you will see just how natural the concept of ownership is.

If i make a filter for water that cleans sewage and turns it into perfectly fine drinking water, yes it is my idea. But ask this, what if my one idea could save millions and improve life?

Then you should be praised, lauded, given medals, have statues erected to you and your name inscribed in history books. You should also be rewarded with at least enough money to keep you in vulgar luxury for the rest of your life without ever lifting a finger again.

Would i be considered a murderer if I did not speak up with my idea and prevent such a loss?

Not a murderer, just a dog in the manger.

Thou shalt not kill, yet need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive – A.H. Clough

Should i be held accountable because i could make a difference? or should i demand monetary gain while people get dysentary and die? What if it was somebodies patented invention that i made to save lives? should i be held accountable as per the law even though i have the chance to make a difference?

This is not a realistic scenario, but assuming it was, the choice should still be up to you. It should not be decided by a third party. That is what the OP wants.

Humanity should have gone a different direction. we should be living for each other, not monetary gain and fame.

We are human beings, not worker ants or termites.