said to contain the "high points of each lecture." This seems to be an attempt to patent ideas, rather than the professor's actual presentation of them.
This is concerning as students should be leaving with the imparted ideas weather in their head or on there exercise pad it is still the intention for the course to pass on to others at least the most important points.
The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.
Scholarly publication is so weirdly backwards.
Despite the narrow audience, scientific publishing is a remarkably big business. With total global revenues of more than £19bn
It is incredible how much these resources make considering the narrow audience
Thinking of your own teaching practice, have you ever revised learning content to make it better suited for your course? Why did you revise it? Did you have to get permission before you revised it?
While I am not teaching staff, as a Librarian I am often repurposing material to be better suited to my context, I may not ask for permission but I do always attribute the sources.
What roles do you think digital technologies and the internet have played in making open education possible? Are there types of open educational activities that are dependent on digital technologies and the internet?
The internet and other technologies have helped by providing many alternate methods for delivery storage and dissemination of open educational resources.
What does open education mean to you? Are there activities in the list that are part of your regular educational practice? What are they and why do you participate in them? What value do they bring to your educational practice?
Open educational resources are important in my context because textbooks are too expensive for most students, so promoting OERs to faculty is essential, also Open Publishing is a great help to our researchers who struggle to APCs
Spreading the Word. Communicating about the concept by highlighting the work of institutions that have established zero-textbook-cost degrees has great potential to attract mainstream media and create an atmosphere of excitement around the idea.
The library is a great channel for spreading the word. Through the library we can engage with both teachers and learners and can help get them excited over the idea. There are great potential benefits to both sides, as teachers can actually tailor the material to their own contexts and learning goals. And the benefits for students of course is the affordability and access to the resources meaning there is no discrepancy between students who are financially comfortable from those who struggle to afford the basic resource requirement of courses they are enrolled in. it should be a requirement, of public institutions in particular, to make at least the core course work available to the students enrolled.
Wikipedia article writing is not yet a mainstream coursework assignment in colleges. It is high time to make that happen. In 2019 Wikipedia turned 18, so maybe academics should start treating it as an adult.
Academia needs to accept Wikipedia for the tool it is, and the nature of wiki writing needs to be taught to university students.
Wikipedia's entries are comparable in quality to those in prestigious encyclopedias such as Britannica. However, it is difficult to measure the consistency of information that can be altered at any time.
Encyclopaedias regular require updates where as Wikipedia is regularly updated. Crowdsourcing knowledge is beneficial when it is received and utilised with a careful critical perspective.
Traditional academic articles – the most common source of scientific evidence – are typically only peer-reviewed by up to three people and then never edited again.
This points to an interesting benefit of wiki's which is that an article is alive and can update its 'facts' as aspects may change. This is a leg up on traditional academic publishing which is only discounted by newer publications, and even if newer info is released the old information is still accorded academic reliability due to the reputation of the publication or journal it was published. Outdated, incorrect information cited from respected sources may do more damage than a wikipedia article which should always be viewed with acritical eye.
The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia published by finding Dulcinea.
This resource is no longer available, or it requires authorisation or link is broken.
Armed with these skills, students, like scientists, can mine Wikipedia for accurate and credible information without falling for fake news.
This is not so much a comment on Wikipedia but rather any information resource found online, if one is equipped with the skills to evaluate the quality and reliability of a resource then the spaces where one can search for and find useable resources is broadened considerably.
its contributors can chose which area they want to write about, which, in theory, means they only produce content where they are most qualified to do so
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia 77% of articles are written by 1% of writers, this would suggest that content is not created by those most qualified to do so but rather those most inclined to do so. It feels like an article goes up as a work in progress and then it relies on public engagement to correct and update.
Wikipedia carries the general disclaimer that it can be "edited by anyone at any time" and maintains an inclusion threshold of "verifiability, not truth". This editing model is highly concentrated, as 77% of all articles are written by 1% of its editors, a majority of whom have chosen to remain anonymous.[1][2]
This points to the problem of a large amount of work being attributed to a small amount of anonymous people. This would suggest that even if the facts are straight there is bound to be an amount of subjectivity meaning that the majority of articles are written with a similar worldview in mind. It may not effect the accuracy of work but it may affect was is and is not included in what is considered a comprehensive account on any given subject