Re: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

2009-05-05 Thread H�l�ne . Bosc 
It is difficult to discuss of taste or colours. 
In my opinion,  ~Snot one full of pro-OA platitudes (like the Berlin
Declaration) but of anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs~T are not "cheap
polemics" : just words expressing personal ideas with a strong
style. 
A "cat" can be a "pussy-cat" or "a durty cat" or " a beast "  : it
depends on the feeling you have for a cat, for some cats or for cats
. 
Censoring a style seems a difficult exercise in a forum.
Hélène Bosc
  - Original Message -
From: Hans Falk Hoffmann
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

Apart from the factual reply by Prof. Dr. Eberhard R. Hilf,
that tells all the necessary facts about what is happening in
Germany,  you, Stevan Harnard, should have a proper look at
your own language ~Snot one full of pro-OA platitudes (like the
Berlin Declaration) but of anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs~T.
 This is cheap polemics and not appropriate to this forum!

 

-

Dr. Hans F Hoffmann

CERN-PH honorary

CH 1211 Genève 23

Tel. +41 22 7675458

Email: hans.falk.hoffm...@cern.ch

 

 

 

 

From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 04 May 2009 18:02
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

 

  ** Apologies for
  Cross-Posting **

 

Yet another declaration/petition/statement/manifesto concerning
OA has been drafted, this time not one full
of pro-OA platitudes (like the Berlin Declaration) but of
anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs:The Heidelberg Appeal
("Heidelberger Appel"), launched by the German text
critic, Roland Reuss.

(These misunderstandings are intentional when promulgated by
publishers lobbying against OA [e.g., the "DC Principles," the
"Prism Coalition" and the "Brussels Declaration"] but not in
the case of scholars waxing righteously indignant about their
rights without first coming to a clear understanding of what is
really at issue, as in the case of Herr Reuss.)

An article in the 2 May 2009 Zuercher Zeitung seems to catch
and correct a few of the ambiguities and absurdities of Reuss's
singularly wrong-headed argument, but far from all of them. 

Someone still has to state, loud and clear (and in German!),
that Herr Reuss (and the signatories he has managed to inspire
to follow him in his failure to grasp what is actually at
issue) is:

(1) conflating consumer piracy of authors' non-give-away texts
(largely books) with author give-aways of their own journal
articles (which is what Open Access is about);

(2) conflating Open Access with Google book scanning; 

(3) conflating "Gratis" Open Access (free online access), which
is what all the Green Open Access Self-Archiving and
self-archiving mandates are, with "Libre" (free online access
PLUS re-use rights), which only some Gold OA journals are
providing, and again, in accordance with the wishes and
agreement of the author.

The Humanities are more book-intensive than other disciplines,
but insofar as their journal articles are concerned, they are
no different: their authors write them (and give them away) for
usage and impact, not royalty income.

So insofar as OA is concerned, the "Heidelberger Appell" is
largely misunderstanding, nonsense and mischief, and I still
hope this will be clearly exposed and put-paid-to in the German
Press, otherwise it will continue to retard the progress of OA
in Germany.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Re: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

2009-05-05 Thread Stevan Harnad 
[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Hans Falk Hoffmann
 wrote:

  Apart from the factual reply by Prof. Dr. Eberhard R.
  Hilf, that tells all the necessary facts about what is
  happening in Germany,  you, Stevan Harnard, should have a
  proper look at your own language ?not one full of pro-OA
  platitudes (like the Berlin Declaration) but of anti-OA
  canards and nonsequiturs?.  This is cheap polemics and
  not appropriate to this forum!

Prof. Hilf, who kindly posted his Euroscience reply to the AmSci
Forum at my request, begins his critique (referring to the
Heidelberger Appell), as follows:

  "In essence, it is not serious, trying to understand and
  being concerned about something, but a polemic
  intentional negative campaigning of the Boersenverein in
  charge for defending the policy of publishers, and some
  pseudo-intellectuals like Mr. Reuss..."


To my ears, Prof. Hilf has (quite rightly) elected to combat polemics
with polemics rather than irenics (just as I have done).

My guess is that the reason this sounded factual to Dr Hoffman is
that what he found objectionable in my posting was not what I wrote
about the anti-OA Heidelberger Appell, but what I wrote about the
pro-OA Berlin Declaration.

I regret that I cannot share Dr. Hoffman's patience with solemn,
year-upon-year signings of long, rambling (and often confused) texts
like the Berlin Declaration, declarations of pious principle, but
nothing by way of concrete practice. The OA action documents are (1)
 ROARMAP, in which institutions commit to actually doing something to
provide OA, by mandating OA, rather than just praising the OA
principle, (2) the Petition to the EC in support of mandating OA, and
(3) ATA 's lobbying in support of the NIH and similar mandates).

I also regret that this, too, sounds (and is) polemical. (But sadly
it also happens to be true factually.)

An exception to the passivity of the solemn Berlin signings and
relentless annual follow-up meetings was Berlin 3  (which Dr. Hoffman
co-organized), at which an action recommendation was indeed made --
but it never got incorporated into the Berlin Declaration itself.
Hence signing the Berlin Declaration continues (for 6 long years now)
to be the formal endorsement of a vague piety with no commitment to
any practical policy to provide OA.

Historically, the Berlin Declaration will be seen as having been a
good, timely idea, but also a lost opportunity to make it come true.

Stevan Harnad

Re: [EuroscienceOA] Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

2009-05-04 Thread Eberhard R . Hilf 
In essence, it is not serious, trying to understand and being concerned
about something, but a polemic intentional negative campaigning of the
Boersenverein in charge for defending the policy of publishers, and some
pseudo-intellectuals like Mr. Reuss.

The very language is absurd: 'the freedom of science to be at stake'...

The Reuss 'Appell' is not serious for scientists, and has been signed by
a) journalists, private writers, belletristic writers, and some intellectuals.
(For them, partly there is some truth in it).

Clearly, somewhat slowly, all the German Science Organisations, e.g.the
Allianz der Wissenschaften with the Wissenschaftsrat, the
Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Max Planck, Fraunhofer etc. have protested and
handed out press releases to counteract. Also the Urheberrechtsbuendnis.
http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/aktiv.html.en

Also, after a first blind copying and distribution by journalists at
Newspapers such as DIE ZEIT, now there is a multitude of serious
thoughtful articles in daily newspapers, notably Tagesspiegel, sorting the
conflations out.

So, dont worry, there is a real concert now on open access in public now.
I personally believe that this will help OA.

To give you a perspective on the lobbyistic powers in Germany, very
quickly after the Heidelberg 'Appell' appeared, the chancelor Merkel
praised it, and its special minister Maizier signed it and said in public:
'we should have a keen eye on whether regulations are necessary for
restricting OA, and analyse whether OA is necessary or usefull'.
(For an analysis they ask the Boersenverein).
This will now give heat to the pre-election campaigns..
Because now the big research institutes e.g. in physics with its
established preprint culture and need will enter the scene.
In effect, we got now more public interest than ever expected.
So let us see what the effect is.

just to add: Mr.Reuss, in his role as Professor of history, or course has
his posted a digital copy of all his scientific articles on his
institutional server, with a link to the publisher for ordering a printed
copy if wished.
This is Kafka-esk: lying on the back just as the lobbyists do, OA is the
devils' gift, standing on his feet as a scientist, he is using OA.
By the way, his research field is Kafka.

Eberhard Hilf
See for the press releases:
http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/aktiv.html.en
also by the Allianz der Wissenschaften of all major German Science
Organisations.
.
Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.
Geschaeftsfuehrer (CEO)
Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH
an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet
Ammerlaender Heerstr.121, D-26129 Oldenburg
ISN-Home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/
Homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf
E-Mail  : h...@isn-oldenburg.de
Tel : +49-441-798-2884
Fax : +49-441-798-5851
ISN ist unter HRB5017 im Handelsregister beim
Amtsgericht Oldenburg (Oldb.) eingetragen.
USt-ID  : DE220045733
.
Sign the petition for Open Access to the EU:
http://www.ec-petition.eu   ;
Why not visit
- Blog zu Open Access: http://www.zugang-zum-wissen.de/journal
- Physics Distributed Network: htpp://www.physnet.net
- Buendnis  Urheberrecht fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft
http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de

Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

2009-05-04 Thread Stevan Harnad 
  ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **


Yet another declaration/petition/statement/manifesto concerning OA
has been drafted, this time not one full of pro-OA platitudes (like
the Berlin Declaration) but of anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs:The
Heidelberg Appeal ("Heidelberger Appel"), launched by the German text
critic, Roland Reuss.

(These misunderstandings are intentional when promulgated by
publishers lobbying against OA [e.g., the "DC Principles," the "Prism
Coalition" and the "Brussels Declaration"] but not in the case of
scholars waxing righteously indignant about their rights without
first coming to a clear understanding of what is really at issue, as
in the case of Herr Reuss.)

An article in the 2 May 2009 Zuercher Zeitung seems to catch and
correct a few of the ambiguities and absurdities of Reuss's
singularly wrong-headed argument, but far from all of them. 

Someone still has to state, loud and clear (and in German!), that
Herr Reuss (and the signatories he has managed to inspire to follow
him in his failure to grasp what is actually at issue) is:
  (1) conflating consumer piracy of authors' non-give-away
  texts (largely books) with author give-aways of their own
  journal articles (which is what Open Access is about);

  (2) conflating Open Access with Google book scanning; 

  (3) conflating "Gratis" Open Access (free online access),
  which is what all the Green Open Access Self-Archiving
  and self-archiving mandates are, with "Libre" (free
  online access PLUS re-use rights), which only some Gold
  OA journals are providing, and again, in accordance with
  the wishes and agreement of the author.

The Humanities are more book-intensive than other disciplines, but
insofar as their journal articles are concerned, they are no
different: their authors write them (and give them away) for usage
and impact, not royalty income.

So insofar as OA is concerned, the "Heidelberger Appell" is largely
misunderstanding, nonsense and mischief, and I still hope this will
be clearly exposed and put-paid-to in the German Press, otherwise it
will continue to retard the progress of OA in Germany.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum