In commenting on my recent post about Flat World Knowledge, Stephen asks:
I can’t help wondering whether there’s any link between Wiley’s participation in this commercial venture and his advocacy regarding the commercial production and use of open educational resources.
The answer is yes, there is a link. Specifically, I don’t have a problem with the commercial production of open educational resources, I don’t have a problem with the commercial use of open educational resources, and I see responsible corporate participation in the OER world as a critically important to the long-term sustainability of the field. Therefore, I am extremely excited about the contribution FWK is going to make to OER and am thrilled to be a part of it.
You heartless running dog imperialist! đŸ˜‰
You’re suggesting capitalism’s not a bad thing? And you’re an educator, too? Whaaat?
I’m very very intrigued by the possibilities presented here (FWK says they have a good author compensation model!)–to me, fitting in with market capitalism was a weak spot of the ocw movement, though I always thought there could be a positive place for it, if considered properly.
You’ve got my support. I think it should be obvious that in open source, commercial involvement hasn’t hurt anyone, but has been a huge contributor to the great speed of progress, and implementation. As long as the right licenses are being used, and companies “grok” how to work with open communities, only good things can come out of this. I love universities and would never bash them, but certainly if you look at the Chinese teaching materials produced by well funded institutions, and compare it with what some entrepreneurial individuals have put together at for example chinesepod.com, it’s quite a difference. Good luck with your new venture!
I guess that when you were arguing in front of all those international bodies that open content ought to be commercializable, I should have known that all the while you were setting up in stealth mode a commercial operation to use just this sort of content.
I guess I’m still naive; I would have expected disclosure. Silly me.