This is a project is a production that has come out of a graduate course at the iSchool at the University of Toronto that touches on information overload, literacy and their definition of "post literacy". It is touches on thee multiliteracy that was mentioned in the reading by Kapitzke, and goes beyond into headier stuff. Check out their Pinterest bibliography, and their new recent endeavor with a Beyond Literacy podcast.

This article is an interesting take on how public libraries can participate in empowering patrons to develop a personal information management strategy. This can in turn strengthen a sense of community in the digital realm and support the development of community repositories.

This is a blog post from Pubpeer.com, a website that allows for crowd-sourced peer reviewing. This post details the website's insight about fake scientific evidence and sloppy science, and how open data can help mitigate these issues. It also mentions that after they allowed "anonymous" people to post, they received more "calling out" of bad science and poor methodology.

Online discussions and post-publication analyses are catching mistakes that sneak past editorial review. This article describes the pitfalls with editorial review and pre-publication peer review, and advocates for post-publication crowd-sourced reviewing through social media platforms.

If you were interested in the Cancer Commons resource from the last module, this one might be something you'd like to peruse. The OERC's portal is open and free for everyone around the world to use to: Find free, open, and online educational and training resources. We will be "recommending the best" and "linking to the rest" of materials that could meet your interdisciplinary needs.

Thank you! I haven't read this yet, but hope this will answer some questions that developed in my head while in class discussion.

Michael Eisen is a researcher at UC Berkley and a co-founder of Public Library of Science. He discusses the news that the American Association for the Advancement of Science named Kent Anderson as its new Publisher, who is a critic of the open access movement. The most interesting thing for me was the mention in his blog post as well as in the comments section by another, that it is perhaps a trend for scholarly publications to produce open access journals. A peculiar motive, to perhaps "own" the open movement? It would be interesting to learn more about this trend, motivations behind it, and the implications on how that affects the OA movement.

And then a quick Google search found an announcement that Nature will be fully open access as of 20 October 2014... but still costs $5,200 USD to cover the article processing charges - perhaps Universities should (will) start to pay these costs instead of the high costs of subscriptions to scholarly journals as they continue to open up their access. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html

Open vs closed source software: The quest for balance I think it is interesting to think about how the two spheres of open and proprietary knowledge can actually fuel each other, and possible to co-exist. This is an interesting article from the perspective of economists / policy makers, and discusses how much government should control the balance.

After reading a brief history of copyright law after the advent of the printing press, it is easy to see that copyright has always been an evolving concept. With the internet we again find ourselves needing to redefine what copyright means and who its serving. The Stationers' Company era of copyright offered no protections to the author of the work, and now we offer a lot of protections to the author of the work - and the technologies we use to access works of knowledge and art are unable to do so with the current laws. I appreciate the videos in the current module that detailed the advances some countries are making in evolving copyright law to be more flexible and keep the user in mind.

This article is interesting in that it introduces (although repurposes an existing term) the concept of participatory surveillance in the digital age as something a little less sinister than what Manzerolle argues against in his paper for the OK MOOC's 3rd module. Instead of seeing the user as a victim of the commodification of social media as Manzerolle suggests, Albrechtslund instead focuses on the fact that people are offering this information freely. Although this was written in 2008, a couple years before Manzerolle, I think these articles really balance each other. Albrechtslund focuses on the complexities of having a digital identity in a physical world and light-heartedly refers to surveillance as something users are aware of as they participate. Are users also aware of the commodification of their participation? I think many are, and for now users are ok with it. I appreciated Manzerolle's mention of options like Diaspora, which I think as a concept could play an important part of negotiating the tension between data ownership and digital social participation.