Re: Building on the Schoolforge.net site [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts

Oh... yes, I see what you mean David. Yes I agree. In my case, I have such a bad memory though that if I don't raise it now, I will very likely never remember ;)

As to an academic model, I should clarify that I don't mean that a "review" is entirely necessary. We are not after all a "research group" per sé, though I suppose that too could be created. What I am suggesting based on my little bit of experience in the last two weeks (note the admission), is that coming from a Windows background and now trying OS has very much been an eye-opener. Most windows users that I know can barely understand the concept of a file. Even IT support folks (like our guy here) have limited ability beyond what they were initially hired to do... never mind asking him if he's prepared to try OS on a linux machine for example. That is where I ended up stepping in and foolishly saying... oh well, I'm curious, I'll give this a try.

For example, I tried OpenSIS on the windows side. I was doing really well. Everything installed just fine, but then the DB didn't get created, nor did tables. I noticed what I thought might be a typo and tried to fix it. Basically to make long story short, I installed it as far as I could without help... went to the developer website, but there was only community help... but I only saw unresolved issues and no real help in the community. I can't afford to pay out of pocket for support... so it's done.

On the other hand, I'm now trying OA for Schools one day here, one day there as time permits... "Les" (my God I even have a name) is there to help when I get stuck and so... yes, I can keep trying. So for the review part, one section could include "Support".. Community, Developer, whatever... This is the sort of "review", I think we need. Something that I as a person who is willing to try can grab onto depending on my level of experience. Had I been a programmer or experienced with installing... I might not need any support and actually be able to write some code to support the project. In any case, it's more just remembering the idea that we could include this sort of information for people looking to try the projects. It might also be possible for us to ask a developer to include that information... perhaps that is a better idea all together.

Wikipedia. I'm smiling. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for "research". End of story. Can it be used outside that world, absolutely. But if sources are needed, one has to go to the original research and quote it. However if someone were to submit a research paper based on Wikipedia... any credible journal would reject it; plain and simple... but that is not what we're doing here. We're not checking for the validity of the existence of a particular sub-atomic particle. We just (if I understand our purpose correctly) trying to connect potential end-users with potentially useful OS software in a format that is as easy to find as possible.

Cheers

From: David Bucknell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jim Jütte <jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 9:41:48 AM
Subject: Re: Building on the Schoolforge.net site [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts

I'm with you, Jim. And I completely agree with your suggestion that we come up with a review process and a means of identifying links in various stages of the review process. I only meant to recognize that the site's existing review mechanisms are also worthwhile and an excellent, important start. But we haven't yet started to use the tools we have and they are much simpler than a formal peer review process. These, to me, should be made use of first as they are in place. Then we should build in a formal process and identification system.

My thought: I think it's up to the group to decide whether we follow an academic model or a social media model or a mixture. But peer-review is definitely important, I agree.

I don't know where you stand on the legitimacy of wikipedia, a crowd-reviewed publication, but my view is that it's hard to argue that "crowd sourced" reviewing processes are not legitimate now, IMHO. They are not perfect; nor, however, can they be dismissed reasonably. Still, I agree that we will have to ensure that those with some credibility on a particular subject weigh in.

Best wishes,

David

----- Message from jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx ---------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:52:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Jütte <jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Building on the Schoolforge.net site [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts
To: "schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi David,

I like the idea of helpful, but what I was initially getting at is this. If you do a search for an academic journal article, the search can be filtered based on whether it is peer-reviewed. Now before you filter you can also see symbols beside each article to see which is peer-reviewed, which is not, among other categories. The legend is provided at the top of page to assist the reader on what the symbols mean. If you click the symbol it would take you to a description of the symbols as well.)

From: David Bucknell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:52:33 AM
Subject: Re: Building on the Schoolforge.net site [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts

Here's a crazy question: There are other rating systems out there. For example, Ubuntu's software center (part of the OS now) comes with a reviewing system. Many software projects that we list are listed there, too. Can we draw on and add to or contribute to their review and rating system? How bout other similar systems on the Web or on other OS's?

One nice feature of the Ubuntu review system (and others on the Web) is a checkbox users can click to say whether they found the review helpful.

David

----- Message from david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:49:36 -0800
From: David Bucknell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Building on the Schoolforge.net site [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jim's thoughts bring us back to comments by LM and Justin about tying our work into the Web site. I am sure you all know that these two are largely responsible for the very impressive list of software titles now listed on the schoolforge.net site. It's becoming a very important resource in itself. So, I would like to second what I sense has been a proposal by these two people, because they understand its completeness and potential better than the rest of us, that we include it in our thinking in our new project.

How?

For starters, Jim's comment makes me think that the reviews and rating system on the site could be of use in vetting links to _any_ type of resource. But that would only be possible _if_ the links were actually reviewed and vetted.

Can we make reviewing and vetting existing links a part of our new project?

Can we then add the new texts as they get mentioned and review them, too?

Finally, can we ask that we have a group-wide "committee" -- that is, that everyone on the list commit to reviewing one piece of software or another type of resource ... and rating it?

It would certainly give our links more credibility wouldn't it?

If you have a better idea, please "voice" it.

Thank you,

David

----- Message from david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:24:28 -0800
From: David Bucknell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jim Jütte <jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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

----- End message from jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx -----

--
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.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

----- End message from david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----

--
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.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

----- End message from david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----

--
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.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

----- End message from jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx -----

--
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.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.