Re: [school-discuss] Pledge to Review and Rate Schoolforge.net resources. Was: Credibility of OA Texts

Hi David,

Not sure how to post a discussion on the wiki. I wanted to pull this conversation over there, but I'm not sure how.

In any case, I don't mean to be difficult, but I would like to review software BUT... what are the criteria we are using? I wonder if we can post a few thoughts on this on the wiki... My first thoughts for example are very very rough. For example, Software has an installer... or software must install. Software is complete, or requires additional components such as Apache. Software works, or does not on such and such a machine. What type of support is available for the software... Just to get things going.

Cheers

From: David Bucknell <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:28:49 PM
Subject: [school-discuss] Pledge to Review and Rate Schoolforge.net resources. Was: Credibility of OA Texts

Dear Schoolforgers,

Bill has, as usual, said it better than I could. Jim has given us the push. If you want schoolforge.net to become a respected source, reply to this message and promise to review one software project this month. Help get this project off the ground.

https://schoolforge.net/education-software

I'll add your name to the wiki. (By the way, probably changing to schoolforge.net/wiki so we don't need to buy another ssl cert. -- but not done yet.)

David

----- Message from bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:26:52 -0800
From: Bill Fitzgerald <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [school-discuss] Credibility of OA Texts
To: schoolforge-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Fortunately, these concerns don't really stand up in the real world.

Unfortunately, they are frequently used as reasons not to trust open content.

On peer reviews, they are easy to fake. Just ask Elsevier and Merck: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090503/1255574725.shtml

Additionally, in many specialized disciplines, the notion of a double blind peer review is just flat out not possible because there are a limited number of people doing work in highly specialized disciplines, so the experts doing the reviews know the experts doing the work.

Moreover, textbooks at the K12 level in the states tend to reflect the needs of Texas and California - so what happens when some of the ideas at http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/03/mixed-results-for-science-in-texas.ars begin making it into our textbooks.

And, the "experts" in charge of publishing houses often miss the basics. Just ask these folks: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/04/01/Errors-abound-Sacramento-math-books/UPI-65371270169444/

So, we should be very aware of the need for creating high quality content, and refining good content to make it excellent.

But we should do this because it's the right thing to do, not out of a misguided sense that the people doing it now are doing it particularly well. Any material used should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless o0f the source.

Cheers,

Bill

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Jim Jütte <jimjutte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----

--
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.