SEE THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST FOR A GREAT UPDATE!
Khan Academy is a truly amazing educational website. It’s loaded with over 1,000 videos on a wide variety of topics in math, science, and finance. And while all the videos on the site were made by one guy working in his spare time (until just a few months ago), the KA site purportedly receives as much traffic as MIT OCW.
So what’s not to love?
Today, Glen Moody (who I like a lot and who should know better) praised the site as a DIY OCW. This is yet another example of the confusion around “free” educational resources on the internet and ones that are truly open (which confusion, if Twitter is to be believed, was a topic of much discussion at the recent Hewlett Foundation OER meeting). If Khan’s site is fully (c), which it appears to be, then Khan Academy is no more an OCW site than CNN is an open news site. It’s free, and that’s all it is. Apparently site users have none of the 4 R permissions we would expect from an open educational resource.
Well, if Khan chooses the All Rights Reserved path that’s his prerogative, right? Absolutely right. Do I judge him for that? Absolutely not – it’s his content, he gets to decide how to distribute it.
So why am I frustrated? Because he seems to be riding the OER / OCW / open content hype wave without actually openly licensing any of his material. In essence, he appears to be free riding on the reputation of the open education movement. Not only is he gaining good will and publicity for something he’s not actually doing, he’s further confusing the matter by letting people continue to think his site contains open educational resources when it only contains (c) material. I wish he would just put a clear statement on his site that says either:
“The material on this site is copyrighted, all rights reserved, and you may not download, share, remix, mashup, or use the videos in any other way without my express permission. The materials on this site are not ‘open educational resources.'”
“The material on this site is provided under Creative Commons license X and is provided to you as an open educational resource.”
Would that be so hard? My most recent letter to Khan reads:
I’ve emailed you three times about this now, and blogged about it today as well.
Maybe if several people write him a letter, he’ll do something about it…
Within an hour of making this post and sending the above email, I received the following response from Sal:
Thanks for pointing this out. Per your suggestion, I just added a creative commons license at the top of the page. Sorry for the confusion.