Accuracy and author reputation are as important in the realm of facts as well as other types of approach to knowledge such as theory. To take a current hypothetical example, it matters whether an expert epidemiologist does, or does not, recommend the use of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylatic in the treatment of COVID.
Every advance in media technology raises both positive and negative potential uses. Social media facilitates sharing of both accurate and inaccurate information. Spreading inaccurate information can be done innocently or deliberately. I argue that the OA movement has achieved sufficient momentum that it is now timely to move beyond one-sided arguments focused solely on the benefits to encompass discussion on both the positives and negatives of particular aspects of "open". One area of emerging issues that I plan to learn a bit more about (thanks to a webinar series through the University of Ottawa's Centre for Law, Technology, and Society and speaker Suzie Dunn) is the legal and ethical issues relating to identity arising from AI and robotics. It is already fairly easy to use and/or alter someone else's identity without their permission. Many people do this at home using photoshop. This new technology creates a new threat to identity. It takes time for law to catch up with such new challenges. I predict that in future we will have stronger laws to protect our privacy and publicity rights. In the meantime, I recommend limiting risk by avoiding open licenses that actively encourage modification. What does this have to do with scholarship? Picture a robot conducting a webinar giving the illusion that they are a particular expert epidemiologist, without bothering to check with said epidemiologist. Does it make sense to assume that no one would ever do such a thing for anything other than the purest of intentions and with the level of expertise of the individual who is impersonated? I make so assumption, and recommend that scholars use every means they can to discourage such downstream uses and facilitate legal action to fight if necessary. If I understand correctly, CC "BY" clause provides a bit of protection, that is, the right for creators to demand that objectionable downstream users remove the attribution. Clarification would be appreciated. However, because CC-BY is an active invitation to downstream modifications, it increases the risk. Many scholars do not have the means to actively monitor downstream uses and take legal action if these are objectionable. For this reason, I argue that it is better to avoid the risk by avoiding the more "open" licenses. best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Cross-appointed, Department of Communication Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org heather.morri...@uottawa.ca https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Nicolas Pettiaux <nico...@pettiaux.be> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:59 PM To: goal@eprints.org <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Springer Nature reaches new milestone with publication of 1000th open access book Attention : courriel externe | external email Hello, For me, it really depends on the work. I agree if the work expresses opinions. But in such a case, the licence can well be CC-BY-ND which NOT for someone like me (I am the leader of the Belgian chapter of Creative Commons and lecture regularly on the CC licenses). For nearly any work that be used as research and teaching material, I consider it really important that the work be under a free CC licenses, and there are only 2 : CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. For me, therefore, Open Access is as good as the license, that is the rights that are granted to the readers. And if the work is not free for reuse it can hardly be called OpenAccess . In French, Open is often translated in a much better way "Libre" supporting the philosophical case of freedom, much as free software (en) = logiciel libre (fr) (now only, after 20 years) = open source, that only transmit the economical benefit of openess . For me OA should have been named "accès libre" (at least in French) (this discussion has already taken place here if I remember well) and reflect the fact that the reader is allowed to do pretty much what he wants. The risk that your are mentioning is quite difficult to see in practice I suppose, because of the BY clause. Best regards, Nicolas Le 19/05/20 à 22:07, Heather Morrison a écrit : There is good reason for authors to object to making their work easy to translate, adapt and modify, and for all to support authors in this. If the translation, adaptation or modification is incorrect or changes the author's intent in writing there is risk to the author's own academic work and reputation. That is, the author may be understood and cited as having said something that they did not say. Avoiding this potential for misunderstanding is in the best interests of all, by reducing the risk of adding errors to our collective knowledge. As a long-time OA advocate and practitioner of open research I do not grant blanket rights to translate, modify or adapt my text-based works. Open datasets are different, in that case the purpose is downstream modification. best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Cross-appointed, Department of Communication Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> <goal-boun...@eprints.org><mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Nicolas Pettiaux <nico...@pettiaux.be><mailto:nico...@pettiaux.be> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:37 PM To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org> <goal@eprints.org><mailto:goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Springer Nature reaches new milestone with publication of 1000th open access book Attention : courriel externe | external email Hello, Where can we find the sources of the books in a format that make it super easy to translate, reuse, adapt, modify, and redistribute ? Thanks Nicolas Pettiaux -- Nicolas Pettiaux, phd - gsm +32 496 24 55 01 - nico...@pettiaux.be<mailto:nico...@pettiaux.be> Avenue du Pérou 29 à 1000 Bruxelles _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Nicolas Pettiaux, phd - gsm +32 496 24 55 01 - nico...@pettiaux.be<mailto:nico...@pettiaux.be> Avenue du Pérou 29 à 1000 Bruxelles
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
