Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-education - Re: [cc-education] Giveback

cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David <davidpalmer AT westnet.com.au>
  • To: development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-education] Giveback
  • Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 02:18:13 +0800

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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page