David Goodman gives a very fair and accurate summary of our interactions in
the AmSci Forum (though I would not have said that some were unfriendly --
just impatient, on my part; and if anything, I'm even more impatient now
that another half-decade has gone by and we still don't have universal
Stevan Harnad in the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Barbara Kirsop [Electronic Publishing Trust for
Development] wrote:
What is very confusing about [the SAGE survey's] call for feedback is
the title [Open Access Publishing].
On 05/15/2010 06:22 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
So there we are: OA's biggest canard and nemesis, being daily,
cumulatively, canonized and amplified by Wikipedia, riding the recursive
tide of its own notability and notoriety (as an infectious virus,
cheerfully propagated by the denizens of
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Stevan Harnad in the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
On Sat, 15 May 2010, Barbara Kirsop [Electronic Publishing Trust for
Development] wrote:
What is very confusing about [the SAGE survey's] call for feedback
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Of course, if somebody, those folks included, think they can build a
better encyclopedia, I'd encourage them to try. And I don't mean that in
a snotty way; it would be useful to Wikipedia to have some serious
Some background:
When I was a librarian open access was one of the principal things I
worked on. Stevan has been for over 10 years an acknowledged leaders
in this field, and his propaganda for open access has been a key
factor for the considerable success it has had--by now all major US
and UK
On 05/15/2010 02:27 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
But we do have serious competition, and it is scary and thrilling - it
also happens to be published entirely in Chinese (hudong, baike). But
even if you don't know how to read Chinese, you can see how they
display portals and amin pages; images,
