JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives


ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Archives


ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Home

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC Home

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC  November 2008

ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC November 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FYI--Why Academics Should Blog

From:

Bookroster Bookroster <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:08:10 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (267 lines)

"no one owns ideas."

If one has an idea, one should feel free to share it. Compensation/credit can take on many forms.


--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Steven . <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Steven . <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FYI--Why Academics Should Blog
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 2:01 AM
> Some observations on Morgan's comments:
>  
> "I truly believe that people can't steal
> ideas."
>  
> Yes they can. We’re not talking about performing a song
> that’s already been done by Pink Floyd etc. Such a comment
> is better applied in regards to a riff that is yet to become
> a song. Someone else steals that riff, builds a tune around
> it and releases it. They have stolen the original idea. What
> about sampling? Someone’s not trying to play like PF
> they’re just playing PF out of a sound system. What of
> photography, art or any other creative field? Your arguments
> on this matter seem a little restricted.
>  
> "Those who like it are then inclined to by an actual
> physical book or audio book."
>  
> Maybe, maybe not. In some cases this may work; however,
> I'm doubtful it proves any kind of cause-and-effect
> relationship. Evidence of this is lacking. Kiddies might
> just like the new Metallica single. They download it and
> never go out to buy the album. Hence, a flaw in your logic.
> Isn't it you that keeps telling me how 'real'
> all this binary code is? I'm intrigued, how does buying
> the physical book fit with that stance?
>  
> "It makes people think!"
>  
> And sometimes it just helps to disseminate biased,
> questionable disinformation and counterknowledge. Instead of
> actually knowing more, people might just think they do. Even
> the worst if ideas can make people think. That hardly makes
> them worth the effort of reading though. 
>  
> "no one owns ideas."
>  
> If I have an idea then that is my idea. I may not own it in
> any tangible sense of the word as a possession but I do
> deserve credit for its conception. People can sell their
> ideas in the same way a tailor sells clothes. Some are good
> at manual work, others are good with their minds.
> Philosophical principles of ownership should not be used to
> undermine this. 
>  
> "If you want to stop the transmission of ideas you are
> trying to kill culture."
>  
> Who is stopping the transmission of ideas? I fail to see
> how allowing someone to make a living off of their thoughts
> is doing this. If anything it promotes culture by
> facilitating creativity and giving people more incentive to
> come up with a good idea and get it out there. When the
> communists took away land ownership people cared less about
> how hard they toiled beacuse they would no longer reap the
> fruits of their labour. Intellectual copyright can be taken
> too far. It's fine to own an idea but things become
> problematic when an individual thinks they own a whole
> topic. Such a case would be accuratly described through your
> words because these folk usually try to stiffle any other
> research into that area.
>  
> If we throw away the concept that ideas and their authors
> are linked then we’ll end up with a situation where
> everyone is going around implying that ideas are
> self-generated. Information is gathered from a range of
> sources. Yes, the internet can be good, yes, things need to
> change in response to media developments; but fundamentally,
> an idea belongs to its creator. 
>  
> Steven Gil
> School of History, Philosophy, Religion and
> ClassicsUniversity of Queensland
> > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:14:39 +1100> From:
> [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re:
> [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FYI--Why Academics Should Blog>
> To: [log in to unmask]> > Hi
> Sabina,> Some thoughts in response to your response.>
> > > Dude, this is what peer review is for.> > As
> Dan remarked, Peer review in its current stage takes ages.
> And it> often leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, a
> friend of mine> recently submitted an article based on
> her PhD. She is in ornithology,> and her PhD was
> fieldwork examining the patterns of bird populations in>
> Victorian (i.e.the state of Victoria in Australia) forests.
> One comment> in the middle of the paper was that her
> results were not the same as> another researcher had
> found. Another comment at the end was, "Well you>
> haven't found anything new". Also, she had done her
> research over the> summer of 2005-2006 and a comment,
> from her northern hemisphere> reviewer, was, "Well
> which summer was it?". Now its obvious that summer>
> in the southern hemisphere is December to February, and as
> her stated> study area was Victorian forests, the
> reviewer should have known better.> This is an
> exemplification of the same argument as why open source>
> software is better than proprietary software. More eyes. If
> someone had> been checking the peer reviewer's
> review, they would, hopefully, have> noticed these three
> basic errors. If this had been on the web, it would> have
> taken a very short time for the more eyes to bring this up.
> As it> was in academicland, the paper got rejected for
> publication. The process> for bringing these kinds of
> errors to people's notice is frankly too> slow. The
> process of getting things published in journals is too
> slow.> > Regarding the profit motive of journals, I
> honestly feel they are taking> two bites of the cherry.
> Yes it costs to make a journal, but they charge> authors
> to submit and they charge subscribers for access. And they
> want> the copyright so they can try to make more money
> later. The process of> ranking journals as a means to
> assess academics for employment is thus> flawed. The
> journals are not in it for the good of the academy. They
> are> in it to make profit. Therefore it is in their
> interests to allow free> dissemination of ideas and it is
> in their interests to only accept> papers that many peers
> will agree with. Remembering the great many> discoveries
> in many disciplines that were made by those not in the>
> mainstream should make us realise the dangerousness of this
> situation.> Who is going to publish the papers that
> genuinely break new ground?> Remember the vitriol
> directed at people who have kooky ideas that turn> out to
> be true, malaria comes to mind. Speaking of profit,
> let's> remember that we are in it for profit too. We
> hope to secure positions> that will provide us with
> income, and we hope to sell books that will> contribute
> to our reputations so that we can get positions that
> provide> us an income. This creates the tension between
> our desire to spread> knowledge throughout the world for
> the benefit of mankind, and our need> to put food on our
> tables.> > > It may promote my ideas, but it also
> makes them available for> plagiarism to anyone who trolls
> the net.> > As the RIAA has discovered, the data can
> no longer be the source of the> income stream. Because of
> the ease with which people can copy music the> RIAA have
> had to find new ways to make money. I am not saying it
> is> right that people copy music, or books, I am just
> saying that trying to> stop them is a truly Canute like
> act. It has taken them a while, but the> RIAA has finally
> come up with a business plan that means they don't
> have> to try to make so much money from the data. They
> have realised that they> can make money from live
> appearances and so on. I truly believe that> people
> can't steal ideas. Ok, so you write something and
> someone passes> it off as theirs. They may be able to
> articulate the idea, but they> didn't do the work
> that caused you to come up with it. Nobody does your>
> stuff like you do. No one plays Pink Floyd like Pink Floyd
> themselves.> No one lectures like Doug Ezzy but Doug
> Ezzy. I would pay to see Doug> lecture. This is why Doug
> is employed as a lecturer. As present day> authors, like
> Cory Doctrow, have found, giving your books away means
> you> make more money. He gives his books away as text
> files on his website.> He charges for actual physical
> books and for audio books. And he has> found that since
> he started giving away his books he made made loads> more
> money. Because the data is free more people get to see it.
> Those> who like it are then inclined to by an actual
> physical book or audio book.> > >Seems to me
> that's still the issue with the web: anyone can throw
> up> anything in any form, with little attention to
> reliability, factuality> or originality.> > As far
> as I am concerned this is a feature. One great advance of
> the> web, and of things like wikipedia in particular, is
> that people are> aware from the get go that information
> is contested. None of the,> 'because it is in a book
> it must be true' syndrome. It makes people not> take
> things for granted. It makes people think! And it makes
> people> aware that if you say something stupid the many
> eyes of the web will be> onto you in a New York
> minute.> > Ok, now this is looking a bit like a rant
> so I will wrap it up. My basic> point is that no one owns
> ideas. If you want to stop the transmission of> ideas you
> are trying to kill culture. Gods help us this should
> succeed,> we would be doomed.> > Regards,> >
> Morgan Leigh> PhD Candidate> School of History,
> Philosophy, Religion and Classics> University of
> Queensland> religionbazaar.blogspot.com> > Sabina
> Magliocco wrote:> > While I completely support the
> policy of open access, and would like to see more academic
> publications move to that model, there are also a number of
> flaws in the blogger's argument. Academics should feel
> free to blog if they choose to, but there may be many
> reasons why they might choose *not* to blog.> > >
> > Brief responses to the blogger's
> recommendations:> > > > 1. You need to improve
> your writing> > Seems like you haven't read much
> academic writing lately -- at least not the kinds I read,
> write and assign to my students. There is an entire
> cross-disciplinary movement that critically examines writing
> styles, especially the implicit power relations in dense,
> jargon-laden academic writing. It encourages experimental
> and community-focused writings. Many of us already write for
> the communities we work with as well as for more academic
> audiences.> > > > 2. Some of your ideas are
> dumb> > Dude, this is what peer review is for.
> Academia developed this process in order for scholars to
> give other scholars feedback on their ideas. I would much
> rather get feedback from scholars in my discipline, or in
> cousin disciplines, who actually understand what I'm
> writing about than from some random crank on the
> Internet.> > > > 3. The point of academia is to
> expand knowledge> > Yup, I agree. That's why we
> teach. Also, see above in terms of writing for the
> communities we work with and serve.> > > > 4.
> Blogging expands your readership> > Maybe. It also
> expands the number of wack-balls who email you daily. I
> already have to deal with several crank emails a day, on top
> of hundreds of messages from my students, colleagues and
> administration. I can't cope with more.> > >
> > 5. Blogging protects and promotes your ideas> >
> It may promote my ideas, but it also makes them available
> for plagiarism to anyone who trolls the net. It's quite
> an experience to see your own words reproduced for you in a
> student paper as original ideas -- only to realize they
> copied them from some random web page where they were posted
> without your authorization. Blogging would only compound
> this problem.> > > > 6. Blogging is
> Reputation> > A similar argument could be made for
> publication, with your reputation made by who cites you and
> where. We already have this system; why duplicate it in a
> much less controllable and reliable format?> > >
> > 7. Linking is better than footnotes> > Um,
> here's a newsflash: not everything ever written is on
> the web and linkable. Many of us still use (gasp!)
> historical sources.> > > > 8. Journals and blogs
> can (and should) coexist> > No argument here; I agree
> completely.> > > > 9. What have journals done
> for you lately?> > I completely support open access.
> But anyone who has run a journal will tell you that journals
> cost because production is not free. It costs to copy-edit,
> typeset and fact-check articles. It costs to print and
> distribute journals. Some of that cost could be offset by
> online publication, and probably will be given time; but
> there will still be costs involved in preparing articles for
> publication. You can't just throw any old thing up on
> the web, in any old form.> > > > Seems to me
> that's still the issue with the web: anyone can throw up
> anything in any form, with little attention to reliability,
> factuality or originality. At least academic publication
> tries to control for these to some extent.> > >
> > Best,> > Sabina> > > > Sabina
> Magliocco> > Professor and Chair> > Department
> of Anthropology> > California State University -
> Northridge> > 18111 Nordhoff St.> > Northridge,
> CA 91330-8244> > > > "If we want things to
> stay the way they are, everything will have to change."
> ~ Giuseppe di Lampedusa, The Leopard> > -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your dream beach house escape for summer! Sign up for the
> Hotmail Road Trip today.
> http://www.ninemsn.com.au/hotmailroadtrip


      

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
May 2023
April 2023
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
August 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
January 2020
November 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager