Arthur
I'm assuming that Peter is saying that its 'human' behavior in the sense of being automatic (unreflective) reaction to perceived 'threat'? I guess we all know that people can be very territorial. It doesn't mean that that behaviour cannot be changed over time, with sufficient incentive. As you suggest, with the wong sort of incentives the behaviour can worsen rather than improved.
Personally I am inclined to optimism. As repositories are ipso facto about sharing we do - in this group at least - seem to have confidence that it is possible. Not everyone shares that belief.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Repositories discussion list on behalf of Arthur Sale
Sent: Fri 20/01/2006 01:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
Peter
Sorry, I disagree strongly. This behaviour is learned (or taught) not innate
and definitely not 'human'. Unless you admit that it is conditioned by the
threat of penalties hovering over one's head.
But yes it is stupid (if this is the opposite of sensible, or maybe
substitute irrational).
Arthur Sale
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Peter Crowther
> Sent: Friday, 20 January 2006 02:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Institutional Repositories: do they need a new name?
>
> > From: [...] H.M. Gladney
> [...]
> > See "Speculation about Faster
> > Progress towards Digital Repositories" in the Digital
> > Document Quarterly
> [...]
>
> From that note (which I think is entirely fair):
>
> "Borghoff identifies more than 70 non-commercial repository offerings.
> Why are there so many? [...] Given the lip service paid to sharing open
> source software, this situation is bizarre."
>
> I'm sure there are plenty more that are presently under the radar
> because they were abandoned before being sufficiently complete to
> register.
>
> My take on this: Not-Invented-Here syndrome is rife in the commercial
> world and in the open source world; and, unfortunately, it cuts both
> ways. An institution biased toward development may feel that it can
> solve its own problems more rapidly by developing something specific
> rather than by adopting and adapting an existing system. Also, the
> well-established systems are understandably wary of code that is
> contributed to solve an institution's specific needs - they don't want
> to incorporate that code and maintain it, and the institution doesn't
> want to have to track new versions of a product in order to integrate
> their own changes with each new and subtly incompatible release. So,
> yet another slightly different system is developed, simply so that the
> maintainers feel that they have some kind of control over it.
>
> Is this sensible? Probably not. Is it human? Undoubtedly.
>
> - Peter
|