Self-interest & Profit

What's the difference between money-making and profit-taking? Are the for-profit mega-publishers who print obscene numbers of textbooks for equally obscene profit any different than Halliburton and their ilk?

This morning's Inside Higher Ed in their "Views" section (essentially an op-ed) featured Robert Brooker, a textbook author, discussing "The Value of a Textbook." If you're paid to do a full-time-plus job, when do you find time to write a textbook? Aren't you already being paid, to some extent, to write the text, as it flows from teaching and learning obligations inherent to the title "professor?"

Many online "textbooks" have been made available for "free." Basically any programming you want to learn can be learned online--it might not be as clean as an edited book, but frequently there are tips and real feedback from real people that can solve problems faster than any book ever could. For more traditional learning, there are programs such as Connexions, which allow for seemingly "interactive" teaching without any actual interaction. Again, much better than a static text.

More on Microsoft Going Scan-Free

Library Journal's Academic Newswire today did a slightly-more in-depth piece on Microsoft's intentions to drop LiveSearch.

They seem a bit ticked off, but reported that Open Content Alliance (OCA) founder Brewster Kahle wasn't, though the quotes they attribute to him sound like he's disappointed to be loosing the future funding (and who wouldn't be).

They're keeping the equipment and training. With costs for server space declining, and so much of it available for free, I can't see that this will be a huge hardship until it comes time to update the software. But then again, I'm probably naive. I also tend to be skeptical about the need for new non-profits; and about the need for preserving every single book ever printed (a check in the why-I'm-not-a-librarian box).

Harvard OA Mandate: The Death Knell

Library Journal, and many others, reported last month that Harvard is mandating that any work by their scholars should be available for free (to paraphrase wantonly). I'm not sure whether to place this in "Idealist" or "Cynic." One would expect Harvard to be a leader in the Humanities and Social Science move towards electronic, and open access, publication. Given the power that the big publishers have over scholarship, the necessity of a mandate towards OA is unfortunate, but not unsurprising.

Catch-up

During a month of flu and it's aftermath, I've read, but not blogged. Here's some of what I missed:

--An excellent essay on the future of the scholarly monograph by Colin Steele, Emeritus Fellow (Librarian), Australian National University, forwarded by Sandy Thatcher

--LJ Academic Newswire Newsmaker Interview: Student Open Access Activist Gavin Baker

--The NYTimes article on Twine, the data organizer. We'll see. I've tried CiteULike, and have used it inconsistently for the last 18 months or so. I have Zotero loaded at home and work, but until I'm able to use the two "as one" as promised, I don't see it working for the way I work. I have a third type downloaded at work, but it took so long to be "approved" for the BETA version, I lost enthusiasm and never installed it. I know, the three I've named aren't exactly the same types of programs, but realistically serve much the same function (similar to this blog, as a matter of fact).

--This posting to Academic Commons: A Day of Scholarly Communication: A NERCOMP SIG Event .

--And, yesterday, one of the many reports that Harvard is leading the way on open access.

Now back to learning a little JavaScript for my day job.