Hi, Jim.
Let's say the second option occurs: we link to something done elsewhere. Your question is of obvious importance: how do we vet the resource to which we are linking?
Criteria?
A vetting process?
Jim, should this be on the wiki somewhere?
David
----- Message from jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx ---------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:23:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Jütte <jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts
To: "schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This is something occurred to me earlier today (China) and I suspect it may have already been mentioned, but if I don't mention it of course... it will get overlooked.As some here will already know, the credibility of a research article is generally best when peer reviewed. Even then, the odd article one will make it to publication and be found to be groundless.
May I suggest in the planning that if there are folks in the group developing texts, that there be criteria developed to provide support for the validity of the text so that the text is either appropriately supported or if needs editing, that that happens too. Second, if we choose not to write, can we find a way again to either show that a link/text is credible OR... if we choose not to, put up a disclaimer.
Personally in spite of the work, I feel that we should NOT be posting anything unless the writer/developer has met some sort of criteria, but of course there has to be developed criteria for the person/team to follow first...
Thanks for listening.
Cheers
--
http://intknowledge.com
91 Suthisan, Dindaeng, Bangkok 10400
+66(0)84 329 1183 (cell); +66(0)2 693 8144 (Don't dial the zero (0) outside of Thailand.)