Needless to say I am loving every second of this blog. As I mentioned in one of my tweets @aumar_days: (If you haven’t done so, follow me!)
And I wholly stick by it! It is refreshing to see so many different point of views being shared across the same topics. This week the topic given to class #UOSM2033 was about the ‘advantages and disadvantage of open access.’
I wanted to take different approach this week by seeing the views of my peers before giving my own opinion. I initially thought the debate of Open Access was a very, very sensitive issue given light of how it has been used in recent years: JLaw Pictures, ISIS using media as propaganda, phone hacking…. the list goes on an on!
I then read Freya’s blog’s regarding the mistreatment of Aaron Swartz, co-founder of Reddit and again was stunned (I MIGHT HAVE GATHERED THE WRONG IMPRESSION) that she thought his actions were just and helped to serve the common good. It helped me as a person realise that in actuality whist his actions were entirely foolish, Swartz helped raise the problems associated with restricted access. When and where is it right or wrong to say that accessing X or Y is right?
Following comments made by Nabeel on my blog, I was outstanding to think that she was even considering full unrestricted access to be a feasible option. Perhaps we as a society simply have not had enough awareness about the extent of dangers on the Internet. Put simply, I am still a strong believer in having a mixed policy of restricted and Open Access. Give the example of research as highlighted in the initial briefing of this topic, I think that it is unfair to have paywalls restricting most articles/journals but given the amount of effort required to complete a piece of research coupled with costs; this method is the best of the worst solutions. Thus far it has worked and as my old pop used to say why try and mend something that isn’t broken :/
I also commented on Din’s blog :)
Looking forward to the future of #UOSM2033!