On 13 Nov 2004, at 06:54, Rick Anderson wrote:
Look, obviously we're proceeding from a different set of definitions here.
indubitably
My point is simply that the word "publish" has a real-world definition that is far different from the artificially narrow one created by the OA establishment.
It may have many real-world definitions or uses, and in fact the OED lists several (1) To make publicly or generally known; to declare or report openly or publicly; to announce; to tell or noise abroad; also, to propagate, disseminate (2) To announce in a formal or official manner I really do not think that the OA establishment (establishment? what establishment?) has coined a new definition, rather that it is trying to work with the definitions used by other people (establishments, if you will). Hence the academic and scholarly establishment have a clear idea (or rather "clear ideas") of what constitutes a "formal and official" manner of announcing new research results- usually peer reviewed journal or conference articles. This is the most pertinent meaning of "publish" that OA has to address, and it is why "to propagate/disseminate", although a perfectly good interpretation of "publish" in most of the "real world" is actually inaccurate and misleading within this part of the real world - the part that researchers inhabit.
If using the Berlin Declaration definition helps you do your work, fine.
The Berlin use (again, not a new meaning) helps us communicate about our work.
But don't yell at (or condescend to) the rest of the world when it insists on using the real-world definition.
The rest of the world needs informing when it makes miscomments and promulgates misunderstandings. I hope that this isn't, of itself, a condescending position, but it is a rather necessary one as journalists, politicians, commentators and even researchers get themselves tied up in knots when they start to reason using the wrong definitions. --- Les Carr