Antonella De Robbio has very kindly made available the talks ate Berlin 5 Open Access : From Practice to Impact : Consequences of Knowledge Dissemination 19 – 21 September, 2007
They can be viewed starting from the Conference website or from http://cabtube.cab.unipd.it/conferenze/berlin5-open-access.
I am especially grateful since many of my talks involve demonstrations from the web and do not use Powerpoint. My own talk has acceptable audio but is a bit fuzzy on the slides. However I created several blog entries
berlin5 : Open Access to Research Data: surmountable challenges),
berlin5 : how to progress Open Data?
berlin5 : what did I say?)
which may help to fill in some gaps.
[Verbal slips – I referred to ACS’s description of NIH as “socialist”, when the exact term – as on the slide I showed – is “socialized science” [*] – my apologies. And I referred to Peter Suber’s categorization of Open access as “access barriers and Permission barriers” when the better term is “price barriers and permission barriers”]
It is always slightly scary to see what you actually said – particularly since I do not normally have a set order in my slides.
[*} Chambers derfines socialize/socialized as:
socialize or socialise verb (socialized, socializing) 1 intrans to meet with people on an informal, friendly basis. 2 intrans to mingle or circulate among guests at a party; to behave sociably. 3 to organize into societies or communities. 4 to make someone or something social.
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- pm286 on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Hiperterminal on ContentMine at IFLA2017: The future of Libraries and Scholarly Communications
- Next steps for Text & Data Mining | Unlocking Research on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Publishers prioritize “self-plagiarism” detection over allowing new discoveries | Alex Holcombe's blog on Text and Data Mining: Overview
- Kytriya on Let’s get rid of CC-NC and CC-ND NOW! It really matters
-
Archives
- June 2018
- April 2018
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- November 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
-
Categories
- "virtual communities"
- ahm2007
- berlin5
- blueobelisk
- chemistry
- crystaleye
- cyberscience
- data
- etd2007
- fun
- general
- idcc3
- jisc-theorem
- mkm2007
- nmr
- open issues
- open notebook science
- oscar
- programming for scientists
- publishing
- puzzles
- repositories
- scifoo
- semanticWeb
- theses
- Uncategorized
- www2007
- XML
- xtech2007
-
Meta
I think your first “slip” was actually not in error. I’m pretty sure that what the ACS meant was “socialist science”, because “socialist” is a dirty word over here. The connotation is “dirty godless Leftists taking away our liberty and individualism and giving all our hard-earned money to the poor, who are after all only poor because they deserve it”, or some such. The ACS was following the pitbull script: tar OA with the socialist brush.
(1). Thanks, Bill. From this side of the pond “socialized” has no political connotations (see Chambers). It seems to be a purely US term. Wikipedia equates “socialized” with “socialism” and while WP is not always correct it’s a useful guide. There have been blog and list discussions (e.g. CHMINF – chemistry informatics – http://stlq.info/2004/09/is_open_access_socialized_scie.html) where the term is taken by US people to mean “socialist”. However Rudy Baum wrote to me and asked that I be precise and so I shall endeavour to be so.
A Google search for “Socialized science” reveals primarily the ACS usage and commentary therein. Since the ACS have not defined the term, but used it in a political sense (i.e. regarding it as incompatible with a Republican government) it appears pejorative of something that has not been defined.