[cc-education] Giveback
David
davidpalmer at westnet.com.au
Sat Nov 19 13:18:13 EST 2005
Robert Stephenson wrote:
> Greg London wrote:
>
>>>For every hour that her class spends using open course content,
>>>the teacher and/or her students owe an hour’s time
>>>(contributing to the project)
>>>
>>>
I'm aware of the average teacher's schedule, and I know exactly how much
chance you have of this occurring.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>well, you say this is a "moral" obligation, not a "legal"
>>obligation, which begs the question as to why you would
>>then put it in a legal license?
>>
>>I have a hard time seeing how it would be legally enforcable,
>>so it might be made null and void anyway.
>>
>>If it isn't a legally binding clause, then you could simply
>>slap it on the work as a "moral" clause that contains no
>>legal bearing, and still say the work is CC licensed.
>>
>>
> This is probably naive, but I would look to the license to tell me the
> conditions of use for the licensed item, and I wouldn't care a lot
> about the distinction between moral and legal clauses.
Laudable, and exceptional.
>>I think that wikipedia has shown that you need to make
>>the tools so that editing a single word is extremely easy,
>>which will then encourage the many small additions you speak of.
>>Wikipedia could have attempted a moral clause, but it didn't.
>>instead it used a simple GPL license and pasted a "moral"
>>clause throughout saying: "Anyone may edit this page".
>>
>>
> Good point. There are two important differences, though:
> 1- The license I am suggesting is directed at educators in a
> particular discipline, physiologists let us say. They are several
> orders of magnitude less numerous than the audience for a typical
> Wikipedia article (and, perhaps, busier).
Build it, and they will come.
The comparison with Wikipedia I don't feel has application.
As you point out, the sociological environment is totally different, and
with the more specialised audience/contributor base, the input may well
be of a lesser volume, but with the accent on specialised content and
the 'peer review' format, it will grow.
> 2- Good, reusable material for teaching generally requires many
> different skills and results from a collaboration of several
> individuals. In contrast, many (most?) wikipedia articles have only
> one principal author.
Yes, but with the potential to be edited by many.
>
> So the participation (giveback) rate for a project developing
> educational materials has to be orders of magnitude higher than for
> wikipedia if that project is to be self-sustaining. That's why
> giveback need to be, not an opportunity, not an invitation, but an
> obligation.
Cart before the horse.
Imposed obligation is always resented.
Create the community, and the social obligation creates itself, as the
means of social acceptance.
>
>
> This is borne out by experience. The Merlot digital library has,
> since its inception, offered educators the opportunity to comment on
> the usefulness of any of its learning materials. Fewer than 2% of
> their materials have _EVER_ received a comment. My own experience
> with the Harvey Project is similar.
That's because it's the wrong strategy.
Regards,
David Palmer.
More information about the cc-education
mailing list