In my view, this is why OA hasn't really taken off yet in a big enough way. All logic, little persuasion on an emotional level.
BTW, Expunging mistakes from the peer-reviewed literature (whether they are willingly forged or not) is a nigh-impossible task. Peer-review works surprisingly well, in many cases, but it fails completely at times as well. Jan On 2 May 2012, at 12:40, brentier at ulg.ac.be wrote: > Sorry, but I disagree with this. > > I understand all the help that celebrities can bring to a cause, but the > choice of the celebrity should be wise. In this case, there is a dangerous > risk of mixing up concepts. > > Wikipedia is, by definition, the negation of peer reviewing. Or, at best, it > is considering everyone as a peer to everyone else. > It works surprisingly well, by the way, in many cases, but it fails > completely at times as well. Expurging mistakes from WP (whether they are > willingly forged or not) is a very difficult task and it can take forever. > And you cannot control everything. > > I do not want to engage in a debate on Wikipedia's qualities and weaknesses, > but tens of thousands of professors around the world spend time explaining > their students why WP, though comfortable (who has never used it?), is a > dangerous tool because it makes widely public a lot of informations that have > not been reviewed by acknowledged specialists. > > Considering how people these days conflate Open Access and lack of peer > reviewing, considering our relentless efforts to fight this confusion, I find > it dangerous for a government to choose WP's founder as an advocate of > scholarly OA. > > Bernard Rentier > Chairman, EOS (Enabling Open Scholarship) > http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/j_6/accueil > > > > Le 2 mai 2012 ? 12:47, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> a ?crit : > >> Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some >> celebrity involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of >> Wikipedia (not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) >> may well influence the perception of open access. >> >> Jan Velterop >> >> On 2 May 2012, at 11:00, Andrew A. Adams wrote: >> >>> >>>> "The [UK] government has drafted in the Wikipedia founder Jimmy >>>> Wales to help make all taxpayer-funded academic research in Britain >>>> available online to anyone who wants to read or use it." >>> >>> I was hoping that the new government might be less star-struck than the >>> previous one. Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose, it would seem. We really >>> don't need Jimmy Wales advising on this. The team behind eprints has been >>> (with minimal funding) developing the technology needed for many years and >>> there are many academics in the UK much better versed in the intricacies of >>> UK academic work and life than Mr Wales. Sigh. I foresee another lost >>> couple >>> of years wasted on this instead of getting to grips with the known problem >>> and the known solution (including providing better funding for eprints >>> development to the team that created it and still does the software >>> engineering for it). >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp >>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and >>> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics >>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL at eprints.org >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL at eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
