I shared this in the discussions section over in the MOOC home area. This is a fascinating piece of research about the attitudes of student knowledge sharing, mainly graduate students in research. I'm a stat nerd, and I especially dig that the number of downloads is shared.

Sad and interesting situation here, scientist publishes his research, and in the comments, his work is called into question and it costs him a job. Brings into question the integrity of pre-publication peer review, and casts a shadow on the future of comments. Frequently, the comments are made by anonymous users, which itself should be a problem, even if the comment brings to light errors in the research. Now it seems, entire websites have sprung up with the sole purpose of debunking the hard work of others, sometimes needlessly. It's a good read.

While not exactly on topic, and newspapers are not generally considered Scholarly publishers, they do engage with the public, and frequently act as a liaison between journals/researchers and the public. In the past ten years or so, people have gotten used to accessing, for free, newspapers and television reports as a way to inform themselves. While this is good for the individual, it is not so good for the publisher. Many traditional news outlets have been struggling to find a way to generate revenue in a way that neither smacks of consumerism, nor excludes the average citizen from participating. IN the UK, the liberal-leaning newspaper The Guardian has begun selling 'memberships', and hosting events ranging from lectures to classes on things as diverse as photography and creative writing.

I have shared this website. It is undoubtedly eye-opening for many who have no concept of South Africa at all. I can't wait to see what kind of feedback happens...

Satya Nadella's rapid reinvention of Microsoft continues. In yet another bid to make up lost ground in the long march to the future of computing, Microsoft is now open sourcing the very foundation of .NET-the software that millions of developers use to build and operate websites and other large online applications-and it says this free... Not much to add on this that won't outright plagiarize the author, but anyone who knows anything about software and operating systems knows this is huge. Open source software is traditionally more nimble and able to deal with various threats in a more timely fashion, whereas Microsoft has to get a team on it, perfect it, and roll out updates to million of customers who may not even know what to do with it once it hits their inbox. Anyone with a Linux machine at home can search, copy and paste the code to fix almost any problem they discover, and be back at work within minutes. The parallels to Open Knowledge are numerous.

By: Matthew LeBar Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are often described as the future of education - or at least a significant part of it. But there may be a significant problem with them: a very small proportion of students who start them actually finish. This poses a serious threat to their legitimacy.

Mel-

I spent my formative years in the UK, and as such, despite being American, emotionally and intellectually I identify more as British (just hold the Marmite...). So much of what is happening there with attitudes towards internet, including the thoughts and efforts Jimmy Wales and Tim Berners-Lee, informs my own opinions. I hope they can find the balance between necessary surveillance and reducing intrusion on ordinary citizens, and then share their insights with the US.

Thanks for sharing this.

The overarching theme this week is getting developing countries on-board. The videos presented made a good argument, and rightly pointed out that the main consumers of MOOCs, and indeed to the technology at large, are well educated males in Western countries. The first obstacle seems to be the developing countries themselves, and the fact that the main providers of information are largely blind to the challenges of life in a developing culture.

Revise: adapt and improve the OER so it better meets your needs
Reuse: use the original or your new version of the OER in a wide range of contexts
Remix: combine or "mashup" the OER with other OER to produce new materials
Redistribute: make copies and share the original OER or your new version with others

From the article "Dramatically Bringing Down the Cost of Education with OER
How Open Education Resources Unlock the Door to Free Learning"

By David Wiley, Cable Green, and Louis Soares | February 7, 2012

"We are in the midst of a revolution in education. For the first time in human history we have the tools to enable everyone to attain all the education they desire. And best of all this education is available at almost no cost."

From the article "Dramatically Bringing Down the Cost of Education with OER
How Open Education Resources Unlock the Door to Free Learning"

By David Wiley, Cable Green, and Louis Soares | February 7, 2012

I watched this very closely. It seemed logical that a non-human cannot own a copyright. But I maintain the photographer should own the copyright, since it was his equipment and he retrieved the electronic data from the equipment...

While it may not be univeristy-calibre, attached is a down-and-dirty video outlining and defining intellectual property. Again, it's very simplistic, but it gets the point across. There are things everyone should have access to, but stealing another's ideas and passing them off as your own can get you into trouble. It's as simple as that, and you don't need an advanced degree, or weeks in a MOOC to understand that.

Dr Willinksy's constant distinction between the intellectual property of medical and scientific researchers and pop music was attention getting, because while they are the same thing...they aren't. There is no doubt open access to medical research is of incredible value to doctors, and has the capacity it impact every one of us every day. But of concern is how, in our modern, commerce-based society, do we ensure those who do the work and host the information are fairly compensated. Additionally, it begs the question, are the creators of other kinds of content unfairly compensated in the other direction, especially when compared to the lifesaving contributions to society made by those whose work is provided to anyone, anywhere at any time, for free.

An article assigned this week concerned Citizen Scientists. In my professional experience, citizen scientists assist the media and science community in a unique way. I grew up for a while in what is colloquially known as "Tornado Alley". Trained Storm Spotters inform broadcast meteorologists of the location of storms and other weather related phenomena on a regular basis. Prior to the widespread use of radar, these individuals provided a valuable service, and they still do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_spotting

Transcript attached. Snowden unable to attend in person.

My training is a a journalist. I spent many years as a broadcaster, getting out of the business just as myspace was taking hold. Fortunately, I did not have to open myself up to further invasions of privacy, as being recognized in public when with family or while trying to grocery shop or conduct other business is distressing enough. I cannot personally imagine other aspects of my life being open to comment by individuals who barely know me. Thus, I find the advent of social media, and the generation who has known no other existence, perplexing. On one hand, we/they lament the lack of privacy and the knowledge that all of our electronic communications are being tracked. On the other hand these same individuals freely share not only the mundane aspects of their lives, but also things that in the past would have been kept out of the public eye. This article speaks to that. I am sharing it in the event you did not delve into the additional resources this week. It is not only relevant to the course, but also to our current social situation in the larger world.

The attached article http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/02/24/privacy-management-on-social-media-sites/ addresses attitudes and behaviours, as well as associated demographics engaging in and exhibiting said attitudes and behaviours. Interestingly, women seem to guard their privacy more actively, limiting access to their profiles, and 'unfriending' more often than men. As for effectively using those privacy controls, the article boldly points out that those with the most education seem to have the most problems effectively enacting said controls. And while privacy does concern a majority of social media users to the point that they set their profiles to 'private' a scant 11% say they have actually posted something they regret.

The research is from the Pew Internet project, and is easy to read. I suggest anyone interested in privacy and the behaviours of those engaging in social media take a moment and read the study.

Interesting reading in this Module, esp the article about having an additional anonymous online persona. It's interesting in that reddit not only allows users to register using obviously fake names, but also declines to require any authentication, but still offers it as an option. I participated in the reddit community for about a year, and in that time connected with numerous individuals, most of which I never learned 'who' they were. Personally, I was never harassed, bullied or otherwise hassled, save for one or two PMs from various mods when I had run afoul of their guidelines.