Wow--that's a great idea. It sounds very similar to what we're doing at Commontext. I wonder if there are any opportunities for collaboration here....

Dave

Hey Dave...thanks for the link to Commontext. I'll take some time exploring the site.

...at first glance, I think it would be a great opportunity to collaborate. Not exactly sure of where to start...perhaps as DOSC takes shape, these opportunities will reveal themselves. Do you have any suggestions as a starting point?

I know there are several other organizations with a similar commitment to open source content (FOS comes to mind). I think the more these various groups communicate/collaborate, the stronger the concept will be (and the greater the exposure).

george

Sounds great.

And after thinking about standards, and the need to be able to update texts, I'm wondering if what could be useful in the long run are systems/software such as soundforge and cvs (concurrent version system) to control document versions and to handle the huge volume of collaborative projects which could eventually emerge. Admittedly, it may be that there are already comparable projects for storing learning objects.

I really think systems such as sourceforge are inappropriate for developing educational materials, where peer review is such an important part of the process. Software either "works" or it doesn't, but for educational materials it's important to have qualified reviewers to ensure that content is pedagogically sound.

Most computer scientists would disagree with you. There are necessarily better ways to make something work than others, and much "peer review" often goes on before implementing changes to larger projects. For example, I just read a piece about a new edition to the latest Linux kernel in which there was much discussion about how "sound" the suggested suggested changes were. And I understand that this is typically part of the process.

Regardless, though, of this point of view, that doesn't mean that collaborative projects might not be served well by software similar to cvs--which tracks version changes without having to store a complete new version each time--and soundforge--a sophisticated piece of software for conducting collaborative projects.

I think the difference here is that the users, particularly of high-profile products such as linux, have much more at stake. A security hole could lose a sysadmin her/his job.

A "small" factual error in a textbook, for example, doesn't have the same potential for disaster, so collaborators are less likely to point out such problems unless there is a more formal process of peer review.

Just a word here - I'm not sure that "pedagogically sound" is the main rationale for peer review. Many things are published that a given audience will critique as not being pedagogically sound.

Rather - it was to wrest all decision making regarding publication away from one person, the editor. Peer review was meant to allow more people with differing ideas and takes the opportunity to get their ideas out to a wide audience. Peer review now has taken on a specific ethos regarding quality of publication (but that is an after effect).

Maybe not relevant to this discussion - maybe it is.

A great deal of open-source educational material exists as PHP scripts. I'm currently attempting to learn the language (and MYSQL)! :-)

You're right: peer review cannot possibly ensure that a work is "pedagogically sound"--but neither does it entirely "wrest control" from a single person. The editor still decides what projects to pursue, and the editor still typically gives the final go-ahead on a project--even, in many cases, in bald opposition to the reviews.

What you have with many open-source projects is, in fact, a dictatorship. Linus still decides what goes into linux. The difference with formal peer review process is that the editor at least needs to acknowledge that she/he is not the sole authority on a project. When peer review is executed most rigorously, the editor must present the reviews to an editorial board, which then decides whether to published based on the combination of the editor's case and the evidence of the reviews themselves.

Peer review can involve any level of rigor, from what I've just described, to editors sending manuscripts to known cronies who will rubberstamp anything. But, like capitalism, it's still perhaps the least flawed system out there.

"What you have with many open-source projects is, in fact, a dictatorship. Linus still decides what goes into linux."

Not really. Many open-source projects are more collaborative than that. For example, in Linux, much of the responsibility for decision making is delegated; it's already been shown to be impossible for one person to handle in the manner that you imply. And in much like a peer-review process, many changes to the kernel are debated online.

Cool...now I know who to get to hack postnuke :)

And the corollary: Many things are published without peer review which are critically sound.

Well, I guess I'll have to take your word for it on the Linux stuff until my copy of Rebel Code arrives ;-)

However, as for the editorial process, I have personal experience on how that works, and I can definitely tell you that peer review is a mixed bag. One thing is certainly true: in the end, someone has to make a decision, and in large part the quality of the product depends on the quality of the person making the decision.

I think also one might try to develop resources which help with the adaptation of open source methodologies and principles for sharing work -- thinking from kind of an administrative angle -- how can I make sure that I get the proper infrastructure to support the development of open content? Guidelines for knowing when it's a good idea to 'roll your own" as opposed to borrowing. Etc...

Speaking for higher education, there's also work to be done in tenure and promotion requirements, among other things.

cbd.