Really love this assertive point - brings to the fore the difficulty of negotiating openness in its many facets, i.e. needing to revert to closing down to ensure that things can stay open :)

site down/offline, alternative via Constant:

https://constantvzw.org/site/-Libre-Graphics-Research-Unit-.html or https://www.medialab-matadero.es/en/news/libre-graphics-research-unit-research-group-free-graphics

video of inaugural session 2011: https://av.tib.eu/media/21713

broken link, find it at https://constantvzw.org/site/Open-Call-Bureaucracksy.html

Next worksession announced for May 2023, see Collaboration guidelines at https://constantvzw.org/site/Open-Call-Bureaucracksy.html?w=https://constantvzw.org/wefts/orientationspourcollaboration.en.html

an alternative to this might be Barcamp-style events

Looking at at the example of Echoräume today, it seems unclear to me what kind of particular format(s) have been put into practice here. Would the proposition here be that extensive formats need more fixed, stable, durable communities that provide ensure longevity of hosting & support of a given format?

Assuming this harks back to the infrastructural capturing of GAFAM that is critiqued a bit earlier, but not quite sure this specific term is really helpful or productive here? (i.e. what do they mean by that?)

Also a problematic conclusion, I would think - yes to critiques of privacy, but there are also a myriad of other reasons why privacy should not be written out of the equation ...

I find this problematic inasmuch as it doesn't account for the role of the outliers in that "background pattern" in which anomalies are recognized - and then what happens to those anomalies?

No source?

There seems to be a lot of assumptions and conjecture underlying the argument here ...

This seems to be a very vague statement - what is the author referring to here?

what is meant here by "state" - the body politic? I believe there's an alternative case to be made that corporate, not state-bound, entities (see Netscape's cookie) introduced user tracking for commercial purposes ...

When looking at this at such a granular way, wouldn't this also translate to basically everything digital related to computing, i.e. a means of digital communication on a very fundamental level?

This seems quite relevant when considering a Commons-based approach to "sharing"

So far, this all sounds very vague to me ... Who envisions us to audit, who expects us to innovate? 'The state' as a placeholder for what?, i.e. institutions, stakeholders, policies?

Conceptually, this assumption seems to be based on a marketplace / economic / contractual approach to the Digital ... I'd be interested to see if the author is also going to explore what sharing can mean in the context of the commons and commoning, i.e. sharing as gift-giving that doesn't necessarily rely on reciprocality ...

Would be interesting to learn more about the balancing of power relations here, i.e. if SciELO has actively applied for inclusion in WoS, or if WoS has initiated that from their end, which would suggest a co-optation of SciELO, an otherwise open database with an altogether different set of underlying mission and set of values.

To me, this is indeed one of the most depressing aspects of what's wrong with "traditional" publishing and the underlying culture of "performance-based" evaluation prevalent in academia ... combined with the sheer impossibility of disentangling the complexities at play when much of HE management (and many scholars themselves) seem to believe this - the scientometric approach - is an exact, neutral science...

Only tangentially relevant, but this immediately reminded me of Brembs' blog post "Elsevier now officially a “predatory” publisher" 😏

https://bjoern.brembs.net/2019/12/elsevier-now-officially-a-predatory-publisher/

Important to highlight this, I think!

really like that notion!

hm, not sure about this, tbh... quite depending on the underlying understanding of "affect"... with a whole field of "affect theory" to consider, and diverse roots in Cultural Studies, Psychology, etc.?

pointers to those "others"?

Der Ende Januar '21 veröffentlichte Report von Adema et al. (2021). Books Contain Multitudes: Exploring Experimental Publishing ist hier vielleicht relevant, siehe das Living Book unter https://doi.org/10.21428/785a6451.933fa904 oder als PDF unter https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4471571

Darunter auch eine detailierte Auseinandersetzung (Chapter 3) mit open source-Publishing-Plattformen, die evtl. hier auch noch mit in Betracht gezogen werden könnten

"academic-led" oder auch "scholar-led" ...

Quelle?

Hinweis, dass die Begrifflichkeiten nicht synonym zu verstehen sind, siehe bspw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science

As Tennant et al. (2020) note, the term Open science "implicitly seems only to regard ‘scientific’ disciplines, whereas Open Scholarship can be considered to include research from the Arts and Humanities (Eve 2014;[5] Knöchelmann 2019[6]), as well as the different roles and practices that researchers perform as educators and communicators, and an underlying open philosophy of sharing knowledge beyond research communities."[7]

how so?

Not sure I follow why "paradoxically"?

is it, though? Personally, I would agree, of course, but many surveys show that much of the general public doesn't really care about these kinds of questions...

This seems like an overgeneralization to me... Some social media sites might encourage exactly the opposite, to create echo chambers for a myriad of subgroups (see e.g. Facebook) ...

I suppose this might be a contentious statement for some; Companies are - first and foremost - designed to make profit. Goes without saying that the narrative they push might be a different one, but the facilitation of communication for communication's sake is not in the vested interest of these businesses.

What for me is still missing here in the discourse presented up to this point is a widening of perspective to include other forms of scholarly output and communication, including OA book publishing, but also experimentation with other forms such as blogging, video review etc pp.

While the perceived shift to "infrastructures" is laudable, much of what has been noted still seems to be informed by a focus on the world of journals... and questions of infrastructure to support this world (repositories, journal platforms, etc.), and thus in itself perpetuating this prevalent notion of "OA publishing equals journals".

Strange to see this non-profit example being added here while the preceding as well as later paragraph was focusing on for-profit OA platformization.

This is not to say that I don't agree with the critique of DOAJ, it's more of the contextualization that seems odd at this point.

While I agree with the fracturing and seeming disconnections point, I think this is not only between OA fora and scholarly journals... There is a variety of intermediate actors in the larger scholcomm ecosystem that further complicate the bigger picture, e.g. interest groups and scholarly societies that claim to represent discipline-specific interest while also working towards their own political agendas ... which further adds to a certain cacophony of sorts...

Next to Geoforum's issue 112 mentioned here, the journal's issue 118 also features a follow-up special section "Revisition Open Access Publishing: Part 2". And while only one of the Elsevier-owned journal's articles on OA in issue 112 is itself accessible as an OA publication, it is notable that all of issue 118's articles are available under open licenses.

I agree with all the points made here, but do think that opening scholarship can also include discussions around power dynamics and collaborative approaches - I don't see that "opening up scholarship" is limited to open outputs, but also inclusive of open practices and an open-minded system of values... in my reading, Open Scholarship would be all about achieving bibliodiversity and sustainable, inclusive scholarly communications :)

I wonder about the synonymous usage of Open Scholarship and Open Science here, as these concepts have also been used in more of a non-analogous hyper-/hyponymous relation... and following the authors' argument through the next paragraph, I think that, while all of this does hold true for Open Science, including Open Scholarship in the opening line/segment overcomplicates the argument, and actually does not really need to, as the later points are focusing on Open Science only.

It would be interesting to know more about this bit - one could argue that many scholars in the Western context would say the same about their work on scholarl-led initiatives, editorial boards, etc. ... So I'm wondering if the difference here might be that in Latin America, this is made explicit via an open acknowledgement in academic job/role descriptions, whereas much of Western scholars are doing these activities on top of their regular work assignments?

what does that mean? i.e. Berlin's understanding, other "liberal" notions?

I wonder why? Like what are the nonmarket contexts of Commons-based peer production that the author is alluding to?

One position could be that the market should not be trusted with public infrastructure, with the securing of "net neutrality" as the digital equivalent to not selling physical infrastructure to market players....

not sure this is the most fitting of examples - with platform turbocapitalism informing platforms such as Uber, Lyft ... - which the authors seems to be alluding to here ....

they also break the traditional concept of "finite goods" which are in the focus of local Commons (pasture, animals, fishing grounds), as knowledge and data, in their conceptual form, are non-rivalrous and infinite ...

Describing this as "two users simultaneously" seems to fall a bit short, I think, as the shift of transaction modes from "one-to-one" [physical] to "one-to-many" [digital - with "many" pointing to "infinite" number of users - once a webpage is published online, it can be viewed by potentially anyone] certainly has rather fundamental implications than the ability to share a book with my roomate.

It'd be interesting to learn more about what he means by the "conventional analysis of institutions" ...

hm... is it?

this seems to be quite key

This does not answer the question at all...

This assumes that open practices depend on and require an open and transparent data infrastructure in order to be practiced - a stance that ought to be questioned, I think.

Following this argument, the Commission also does not assess the potential conflicts of interest or distortion of fair competition of subcontractors to a consortium, or am I reading this the wrong way? ;)

This sounds a bit recursive, doesn't it? Jon has pointed out four major points of bias, and the response doesn't explain or justify any of them...

Repeating what has been said before does not make it right... as outlined, the implicit authority held by Elsevier poses a very high risk of conflicting with the aims of open science practices ...

Hm, ein wie ich denke wichtiger Unterschied: Doug spricht in seiner Meta-Analyse ja über verschiedene Literacies (Plural) - mit den 8 Cs destilliert er Gemeinsamkeiten, die seiner Meinung nach in allen untersuchten Ansätzen zu Digital Literacy gefunden werden können. (thesis, p.206)

Die Suche nach der einen Definition von Digital Literacy "to rule them all" sei - so Doug - ja eher nicht zielführend, da der Begriff generell eine "‘convenient hypocrisy’" [sei]. "By this I mean that it is a term used ambiguously (both consciously and unconsciously) by people with multitude of different backgrounds and intentions." (p.223)

Die Frage daher: Wären dann nicht eher diese 8C Grundeigenschaften bzw. Driver, die man - auch ganz jenseits der Literacy-Debatte - sich genauer ansehen könnte und deren Ausprägung dann für ein neues Schema genutzt werden könnten? (Nur quasi laut gedacht... ;) )

Das Thema ist ein ganz schön Großes :) ich vermute, je nachdem welche Expertin/welchen Experten Du dazu fragst, wird Digital Literacy u.a. auch genau die im Absatz darüber zu Skills geführten Fragen beinhalten ;)

Der ganze Topf der Begriffsdiskussion zu Kompetenzen/Fertigkeiten, Literacy, Proficiency oder gar "Capabilites" (die eher "Fähigkeiten" im Sinne von "Ermöglichungnshorizonten" verstehen, siehe bspw. die Six Digital Capabilities von Jisc [1] [2]) scheint mir so vielschichtig und unterschiedlich besetzt, dass eine Festlegung auf eine Definition, von der Du selbst ausgehen möchtest, hilfreich wäre :)

D.h. was ich spannend fände: wie siehst Du das denn - findest Du selbst bspw. den aufgeführten EU-Ansatz sinnvoll, oder den Mozilla-Ansatz? (oder beide? oder andere? )

Moin Christian! Ich finde den Ansatz der Drivers sehr spannend, meine Frage dazu: wie kamt ihr zu genau den Aspekten, und welche Logik habt ihr den 18 Elementen übergeordnet, um auf die 6x3 Bereiche zu kommen? Habe gerade versucht, noch mehr dazu zu finden, konnte aber außer den Slideshare-Slides nicht viel ausfindig machen... bin für jegliche Pointer dankbar :) LG; Tobi