openness
Locked
 
|
Re: using openness as a tool for opacity Who's Afraid of Peer Review? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full > The most basic obligation of a scientific journal is to perform peer review, arXiv founder Ginsparg says. He laments that a large proportion of open-access scientific publishers "clearly are not doing that." Ensuring that journals honor their obligation is a challenge that the scientific community must rise to. "Journals without quality control are destructive, especially for developing world countries where governments and universities are filling up with people with bogus scientific credentials," Ginsparg says. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella To live and blow all of that piss into your heart ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 10/03/2013 02:05 PM, glen wrote:
> > Re: using openness as a tool for opacity > As far as a I can tell, you are just using the word opacity to mean anything that isn't clear enough to be wrong, or not apparently valuable enough to get scrutiny. That's distinct from purposely holding back information, and even traditional scientific journals don't aim for that, at least to their customers. Using the FSF lingo, traditional scientific journals are neither libre or gratis, but aim to be sourceware. Sourceware can be restricted to customers or some defined audience. The meaning I use in this context for opacity is the opposite of sourceware. Half the story, not the whole story. I can see there is a potential tension between anticipated value and the energy available for scrutiny, though. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 10/03/2013 01:22 PM:
> On 10/03/2013 02:05 PM, glen wrote: >> >> Re: using openness as a tool for opacity >> > As far as a I can tell, you are just using the word opacity to mean anything that isn't clear enough to be wrong, or not apparently valuable enough to get scrutiny. No, I'm using "opacity" to mean information hiding. A subset of bad actor open-access journals in that article are using "open washing" (in the same sense as "green washing") in two ways: a) to make a profit (decreased costs by not doing significant reviewing) off submitters and b) to hide that profiteering. After all, they _could_ publish behind a pay wall even though they don't provide any review services. But when you have to pay for something, immediate, tight loop, expectations help identify flaws faster than when you identify something "free" as worthless. So, in order to make the profit, they have to hide how they lower the cost. How do they hide it? ... by claiming they're open access. It's a disingenuous use of open access. The subset of incompetent actors aren't (I don't think) purposefully "open washing" their product. They just don't know what they're doing. (Re: the discussion of Hindawi in the article.) -- -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Engineer the future now. Damn tommorow, future now! ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 10/3/13 3:15 PM, glen wrote:
> But when you have to pay for something, immediate, tight loop, > expectations help identify flaws faster than when you identify > something "free" as worthless. For software, if one has immediate, tight loop expectations, it is close to already having it. But normally there are a bunch of unstated or unknown expectations that where the payer just wants to inherit the best practice (assuming there is such a thing). I think they often do _not_ know what those practices are, or _really_ what they want. They just want the `best' thing. So, in the more-money-then-brains or more-money-than-time, they want some authority (or someone holding IP) to essentially tell them what they want and be on their team. This is appealing to people that have resources (esp. unaccountable resources) because it makes them feel like they know or control something because they bought something. They may define "free" as worthless because they are only instrumental via capital. (I recognize it may be useful to just spend money and see the broad outlines of the state-of-the-art, and then go back and actually learn about the apparently interesting or relevant bits.) Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
There's an xkcd comic in this week's Science, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/58.full, titled the rise of open access. I hope it's open access. -- rec -- On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 10/03/2013 02:56 PM:
> For software, if one has immediate, tight loop expectations, it is close to already having it. But normally there are a bunch of unstated or unknown expectations that where the payer just wants to inherit the best practice (assuming there is such a thing). I think they often do _not_ know what those practices are, or _really_ what they want. They just want the `best' thing. So, in the more-money-then-brains or more-money-than-time, they want some authority (or someone holding IP) to essentially tell them what they want and be on their team. This is appealing to people that have resources (esp. unaccountable resources) because it makes them feel like they know or control something because they bought something. They may define "free" as worthless because they are only instrumental via capital. (I recognize it may be useful to just spend money and see the broad outlines of the state-of-the-art, and then go back and actually learn about the apparently interesting or > relevant bits.) Sorry, I couldn't find a way to trim down your text without sacrificing the gist. Yes, in software a purchase usually (>50%) is accompanied by tight expectations. But even when, say, buying a pinwheel in Chinatown or a US flag at a big parade, if it's handed to you for free, it can take you awhile to really determine whether it's worthless or if there's some joy hidden somewhere inside. (E.g. I recently picked up a free flash drive at a conference with the intention of erasing the marketing crap on it and giving it to Renee' for her homework. But, luckily, I perused the content first and found a gem of a paper on Goedel's incompleteness theorems buried inside.) Contrast that with a pinwheel or US flag that you have to spend, say, $1 for. Your "what am I really buying" mode kicks in and you tighten up the loop quicker than if someone just hands it to you for free. My point was not to talk about hypothetical people who identify "free" with worthless or the more-money-than-brains types. It was to talk about people who use "free" strategically in order to leverage other assets. Google is a great example. Redhat is another, different, example. Oracle is yet another different example. The first two are (I think) largely well intentioned or at least incompetent actors. The latter often strikes me as a bad actor ... but nowhere near the likes of the open access journals targeted in the article. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella Somewhere, nowhere all ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 10/4/13 9:30 AM, glen wrote:
> But even when, say, buying a pinwheel in Chinatown or a US flag at a > big parade, if it's handed to you for free, it can take you awhile to > really determine whether it's worthless or if there's some joy hidden > somewhere inside. I see your point (and about the bad journals), but there is something unfortunate or even egotistical about defining the value of an idea or artifact in terms of the attention or inattention of the individuals that happen across it. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Glen/Marcus-
> On 10/4/13 9:30 AM, glen wrote: >> But even when, say, buying a pinwheel in Chinatown or a US flag at a >> big parade, if it's handed to you for free, it can take you awhile to >> really determine whether it's worthless or if there's some joy hidden >> somewhere inside. > I see your point (and about the bad journals), but there is something > unfortunate or even egotistical about defining the value of an idea or > artifact in terms of the attention or inattention of the individuals > that happen across it. > > Marcus attention given to an artifact/idea precisely what gives it value in a marketplace? I admit that the market is a fickle bitch sometimes and some of the best ideas or artifacts likely get ignored forever. The very phenomenon of artists (and sometimes writers) not being "discovered" until after their death is one example. Isn't the actual attention given something like the kinetic energy with a latent attention it deserves being more like potential energy? This is all relative of course... many ideas (and the artifacts grown from them) are perhaps before their time or out of cultural context. The work I have done in scientific collaboration was at least partly about unlocking some of that potential by helping practitioners in normally disjoint fields find common language and models to exchange their best (or most latent?) ideas. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 10/4/13 9:53 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email] > Why reminds me, what sort of interesting computer architectures are coming out of Russia these days? A lot of this appears to be reselling (Altera, Linear Technology, etc.). Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email]
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Steve Smith wrote at 10/04/2013 08:52 AM:
> I think this is (finally) the nut of the discussion? But isn't the attention given to an artifact/idea precisely what gives it value in a marketplace? I admit that the market is a fickle bitch sometimes and some of the best ideas or artifacts likely get ignored forever. The very phenomenon of artists (and sometimes writers) not being "discovered" until after their death is one example. > > Isn't the actual attention given something like the kinetic energy with a latent attention it deserves being more like potential energy? This is all relative of course... many ideas (and the artifacts grown from them) are perhaps before their time or out of cultural context. To me, this puts the cart before the horse ... the horse is the thing and the cart is thought about the thing. Of course, I sound like a broken record. Thought is useless. It's action that matters. Along those same lines, what allows artists to be discovered after their death is the fact that they constructed tangible, lasting artifacts. And, further, it seems to me that the good artists I know refuse, almost on principle, to corrupt the artifact by yapping about it the way art critics do. I infer from this that they consider the art[ifact] primary and any attention it may [not] receive secondary. Now, the ur-meaning of openness relates fundamentally to this sense of the artifact. I know some artists who object strongly to the kind of "post-modern" funging of Art(TM). Somehow, the artifact they call art is supposed to be sacred... it is as the artist designed it and should remain so. But most of the younger artists (and many of the older ones) tend to be more dynamic. They enjoy it when some other person comes along and adds to what they've done, even if it changes the sense of the artifact entirely. It's in this light that I see most of the maker community and a large portion of the open software community. If you take time to fork my product, then I'm flattered by the fork, not offended because you didn't follow my vision or preserve my use cases. Anecdotally, I feel the same way about graffiti. It's stigmergic, and way more interesting than something static or "artificial" (in the denigrating sense of the word). > The work I have done in scientific collaboration was at least partly about unlocking some of that potential by helping practitioners in normally disjoint fields find common language and models to exchange their best (or most latent?) ideas. Right, but if I may be so offensive, I'll suggest that you're not doing what you think you're doing. ;-) You're not helping them exchange _ideas_. You're helping them do stuff and make stuff. It's the stuff that matters, not the ideas. I know you know this. But I have to practice stating the obvious, otherwise I might lose my certification. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella This body of mine, man I don't wanna turn android ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 10/4/13 2:45 PM, glen wrote:
> Steve Smith wrote at 10/04/2013 08:52 AM: >> I think this is (finally) the nut of the discussion? But isn't the >> attention given to an artifact/idea precisely what gives it value in >> a marketplace? I admit that the market is a fickle bitch sometimes >> and some of the best ideas or artifacts likely get ignored forever. >> The very phenomenon of artists (and sometimes writers) not being >> "discovered" until after their death is one example. >> >> Isn't the actual attention given something like the kinetic energy >> with a latent attention it deserves being more like potential >> energy? This is all relative of course... many ideas (and the >> artifacts grown from them) are perhaps before their time or out of >> cultural context. > > To me, this puts the cart before the horse ... the horse is the thing > and the cart is thought about the thing. Of course, I sound like a > broken record. Thought is useless. It's action that matters. Along > those same lines, what allows artists to be discovered after their > death is the fact that they constructed tangible, lasting artifacts. > And, further, it seems to me that the good artists I know refuse, > almost on principle, to corrupt the artifact by yapping about it the > way art critics do. I infer from this that they consider the > art[ifact] primary and any attention it may [not] receive secondary. > > Now, the ur-meaning of openness relates fundamentally to this sense of > the artifact. I know some artists who object strongly to the kind of > "post-modern" funging of Art(TM). Somehow, the artifact they call art > is supposed to be sacred... it is as the artist designed it and should > remain so. But most of the younger artists (and many of the older > ones) tend to be more dynamic. They enjoy it when some other person > comes along and adds to what they've done, even if it changes the > sense of the artifact entirely. > > It's in this light that I see most of the maker community and a large > portion of the open software community. If you take time to fork my > product, then I'm flattered by the fork, not offended because you > didn't follow my vision or preserve my use cases. > > Anecdotally, I feel the same way about graffiti. It's stigmergic, and > way more interesting than something static or "artificial" (in the > denigrating sense of the word). > >> The work I have done in scientific collaboration was at least partly >> about unlocking some of that potential by helping practitioners in >> normally disjoint fields find common language and models to exchange >> their best (or most latent?) ideas. > > Right, but if I may be so offensive, I'll suggest that you're not > doing what you think you're doing. ;-) You're not helping them > exchange _ideas_. You're helping them do stuff and make stuff. It's > the stuff that matters, not the ideas. I know you know this. But I > have to practice stating the obvious, otherwise I might lose my > certification. helping them do stuff, but the mechanisms of their doing stuff included pattern recognition and alignment between linguistic constructs (theories, best practices, etc). I think I agree about your first point as well regarding carts and horses... but a cart without a horse is a bin and a horse without a cart is an eating machine that if you are clever and persistent might also be a friend and a personal mount/conveyance. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
My Russian is a little rusty these days (okay, so I don't know any at all), but Google Translate enlightened me that Yuri wrote "I'm on vacation until October 16. For urgent matters please contact Elena Fedorova." Is Yuri a fellow complexity guy who forgot to put his FRIAM subscription on hold, thus treating to his vacation auto-responder?
Gary On Oct 4, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 10/4/13 9:53 AM, [hidden email] wrote: >> Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email] >> > Why reminds me, what sort of interesting computer architectures are coming out of Russia these days? > A lot of this appears to be reselling (Altera, Linear Technology, etc.). > > Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Maybe if any of us had a grasp of Russian folklore, we might find that
the name Elena Federova is a play on the idea of a Federalized Government and Yuri is just adamantly reminding us of the tragic lessons of that particularly relevant folktale? Probably not... autoresponder is more likely! Don't (many?) autoresponders magically (how?) recognize listservers (when the from and the reply-to don't match?). > My Russian is a little rusty these days (okay, so I don't know any at all), but Google Translate enlightened me that Yuri wrote "I'm on vacation until October 16. For urgent matters please contact Elena Fedorova." Is Yuri a fellow complexity guy who forgot to put his FRIAM subscription on hold, thus treating to his vacation auto-responder? > > Gary > > > On Oct 4, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 10/4/13 9:53 AM, [hidden email] wrote: >>> Я нахожусь в отпуске до 16 октября. По срочным вопросам обращайтесь к Елене Федоровой [hidden email] >>> >> Why reminds me, what sort of interesting computer architectures are coming out of Russia these days? >> A lot of this appears to be reselling (Altera, Linear Technology, etc.). >> >> Marcus > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
On 10/04/2013 04:11 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Maybe if any of us had a grasp of Russian folklore, we might find that > the name Elena Federova is a play on the idea of a Federalized > Government and Yuri is just adamantly reminding us of the tragic > lessons of that particularly relevant folktale? It's time for the FRIAM Markov chain to bounce back to the Haiku generation state, isn't it? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
... Yuri is just adamantly reminding us of the tragic lessons of
that particularly relevant folktale?
It's time for the FRIAM Markov chain to bounce back to the Haiku generation state, isn't it?I vote for Limericks this time. There once was a Russian named Yuri ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |