In the class I'm a teacher's assistant for, we have begun work on our final project, the main manifestation of which is an e-book. And even though I don't have much time as it is, I am making a contribution to the chapter on openness. Why? 'Cause it matters and I care enough to do something about it, that's why. Our group has been trying to hone in on the focus of our chapter, and considering the subject, that has been a challenge thus far.
A friend of mine told me recently that he thinks one of the strengths of my personal scholarship is that I am able to ask the right questions. So I'm hoping that as we make an effort to answer these questions we will be able to strike at the heart of what openness means, why we need it, what its shortcomings are, and what we propose to do about it all.
Tweethis in Process
Openness is not so much a state of being as it is an environment, or a mindset.
Openness is realizing that the process has power and is making that process, that information, that knowledge, widely available for others to use.
We need openness, but that openness needs environmental parameters that become "a catalyst to creativity" instead of stifling it.
What is openness?
What do we speak of when we throw out that term? It is important that we know what openness is and what it is not.
Openness is not so much a state of being as it is an environment, or a mindset.
Openness is realizing that the process has power and is making that process, that information, that knowledge, widely available for others to use.
Why do we want openness?
So people have free access to information that will better their lives. So that creativity may be allowed to flourish. So that people can truly build on the work of others and not have to start from scratch. Because we believe that an open environment better enables people to reach their potential and allows innovation to occur. Openness makes things like education scalable (taken from Dr. Burton's post on Openness on 7 Fronts). The process has power!
What historical events/situations can inform our understanding of openness?
The advent of the printing press changed everything. And now the Internet is changing everything again.
We need new frameworks for our knowledge: Linnaeus and his development of taxonomy
Cicero's Latinas: Should we go by authority of popular usage or what the "experts" say? Movement by the Renaissance humanists to model all Latin on the Latin of Cicero. (see this site) O tempora! O mores!
Scientific journals (David Perkins posts, Open and Closed)
History of openness itself
Some important paragraphs from Dr. Burton's post:
There is a principle very familiar to artists, writers, and musicians of "liberating form." The paradox is that the tight rules of a sonnet, or a sonata, or a given genre in any medium allow for creativity precisely because of the consistency (and even the difficulty) of their required forms. All artistic conventions are restrictions; but that is something we end up celebrating. It is often the lack of conventions or standards that detracts from creativity and innovation. Progress requires order. Those of us with strong religious convictions recognize God's commandments as similarly liberating. It takes work not to lie, or give in to temptations. But obeying those constraints frees me from larger ones.
If you throw the doors wide open anywhere, you invite anarchy. Anarchy is just as bad as completely locked down control (and often leads to it, as the Reign of Terror flowed from the over-openness of the French Revolution). But if you provide structure that can then become a catalyst to creativity, you've found the golden mean. That sweet spot isn't always easy to find, and frankly it can shift over time (I am more confident in Android's open system in the long haul, more skeptical of it in the near term). But it does no good to make sweeping generalizations about freedoms being threatened whenever any control or restriction is in place. If you think about it, any kind of order is a kind of control; any kind of structure can seem restrictive. It all boils down to the details of what structures in what context provide a means for creativity and innovation to flourish; and which structures prove deadening to the advancement of knowledge, or art, or commerce, or government.
What do we need to have an environment of openness?
(1) a clear benefit for openness
(2) freedom to create
(3) respect for the creator
(Taken in part from Lawrence Lessig TEDx video on David Wiley's site)
In short, openness needs environmental perameters to prevent everything from dissolving into anarchy and chaos. What sort of environmental perameters are we talking about here? We need structures to help us make sense of this environment, but ones that won't stifle innovation or shut people in. The commercial aspect should not hinder the information flow.
Is openness like language--a system, though changing, in equilibrium? Each generation is convinced that the generation after it is butchering the language, when in reality the language is in a state of equilibrium, constantly changing, and yet remaining in a closed system.
Walled garden: Don't want to get too deep into the Mac vs PC debate here, but it's a point worth looking at for a bit.
50 brains are better than one, even if that one brain has a PhD. 10,000 eyes are better than two in spotting software bugs
Crowdsourcing
What are the pitfalls to openness?
Overviews and Case Studies
- Compromised quality of information
- Misuse/misunderstanding of information: Many possessors of information find themselves dealing with the Philosopher's Dilemma: Should I share this information so it can benefit mankind? Or should I keep this more private and only give it to other enlightened souls so there will be less chance of it being misunderstood or misused? (discussion of human nature--Hobbes, Locke: what is the natural state of human beings? What would they do with freedom if given to them?)
- Inability for creators to profit from their ideas, at least in the traditional way
- Information management
Some may cast the same jaundiced eye on the openness movement as they do on the idea of Manifest Destiny. Are we taking that mindset? Is this mindset flawed?
What are the flaws in our systems/in these areas? (Areas taken from Gideon Burton's post about the Openness Movement on Seven Fronts)
- Open Source Software
- Open Access Publishing
- Open Data
- Open Licensing and Open Content
- Open Educational Resources (OER)
- Open Science
- Open Government
There must be personal principles.
Who are the heavy hitters in this openness movement?
Eric Raymond: Software developer; one of the frontrunners in the open movement. Wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar
David Wiley: BYU professor in department of Instructional Psychology and Technology
Lawrence Lessig (?)
Sources
"The Economy of Ideas: A Framework for Patents and Copyrights in the Digital Age" by John Perry Barlow. ("Information wants to be free")
The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond
David Wiley's site/blog
Images
Mindset, not state of being
Anarchy! (Locke)
Structure (Linnaeus?)
Enhances innovation, doesn't stifle it
0 comments:
Post a Comment