¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The Wikimania meeting is the annual jamboree of the Wikimedia movement. The sessions cover museums, pop culture, politics, technology, communities and tools. Two thousand people have descended on the Barbican Centre in London to talk not just about Wikipedia (or more properly the Wikipedias in various languages) but a myriad of other projects that use the platforms or infrastructure the foundation stewards or take inspiration from the successes of this movement. The energy and the optimism here is infectious. The people around me are showing in session after session what happens when you give motivated people access to information resources and platforms to work with them.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 From the perspective of academia, or of scholarly publishing it is easy, even traditional, to be dismissive of these efforts. There is perhaps no more pejorative term in the academic lexicon than ‘amateur’. This is a serious mistake. The community here are a knowledge creation and curation community – the most successful such community of the digital age.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 There is much that they can teach us about managing information at scale and making it accessible and usable. The infrastructure they are building could be an important contribution to our own information platforms. There are tools and systems I have seen demonstrated here, many of them built by those ‘amateurs’, which far outstrip the capabilities we have in the academic information ecosystem. And we don’t come to the table empty handed – we have experience and knowledge of curation and validation at different scales, on how to manage review when appropriate experts are rare, on handling conflicts of interest and the ethical conduct of information gathering.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 But we are just one contributor to a rich tapestry of resources, just one piece in a puzzle. One of the things I find most disappointing about the way the legacy scholarly publishing establishment interacts with the web is the way they remain wed to the idea that it makes sense to keep scholarly publishing somehow separate. The idea that “Creative Commons Licenses…are not specifically designed for academic and scholarly publishing”1 aside from being a misrepresentation makes very little sense unless you insist on the idea that scholarly work needs to be kept separate from the rest of the world’s knowledge.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 Now don’t get me wrong – scholarly knowledge is special. It is special because of the validation and assessment processes it goes though. But the containers it sits in. They’re not special. The business models that provide those containers aren’t particularly special. But most importantly the ways in which that knowledge could be used by a motivated community aren’t any different from that of other knowledge resources. And if we don’t make it easy to use our content then it will simply be passed over for other more accessible, more easily useable materials.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 This community, this massive, engaged and motivated community are our natural allies in knowledge creation, dissemination, research engagement and ultimately justifying public research funding. We disengage from them at our peril. And we don’t get to dictate the terms of that engagement because they are bigger and more important than us. But if we choose to engage then the benefits to both our communities could be enormous.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 It is comfortable to be the big fish in the small pond – to put up barriers and say “but we are different, we’re special” – but if we want to make a difference we should choose to swim actively in the main stream. Because that’s what this community is. The main stream of information and knowledge dissemination in the digital age.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Originally published as “Wikimania: We need to choose the main stream over our small pool” at the PLOS Opens Blog. Copyright PLOS – published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, republished here in modified form.
- ¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0
- This quote is from the STM Association response to a call, coordinated by my group at PLOS to withdraw the special licenses that they had proposed as alternatives to Creative Commons licenses for scholarly work. This piece was written as a part of that campaign. STM Association (2014) STM Response to “Global Coalition of Access to Research, Science and Education Organisations calls on STM to Withdraw New Model Licenses”, available at http://www.stm-assoc.org/2014_08_07_STM_response_to_call_for_license_withdrawal.pdf. The original call is linked from the response and available online at https://www.plos.org/global-coalition-of-access-to-research-science-and-education-organizations-calls-on-stm-to-withdraw-new-model-licenses/ ↩