On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Laval Hunsucker <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> OK, folks. Quite apart from this nice little bilateral discussion
> that has now arisen, . . .
>
> The simple fact remains that the product in question has met
> with an exceptionally meager reception. And that this means
> that all of that fantastic content on which so many colleagues
> have expended such effort not merely is "not freely available"
> -- it is hardly accessible at all to probably the vast majority
> of those fellow professionals in the world who could -- and
> should be able to -- directly benefit from its use. Or to those
> who ( like me ) would in any event very much like at least to
> be in a position to consult the resource from time to time. Or
> to most students or, say, interdisciplinary researchers. Not to
> mention its (non)accessibility to an interested, or potentially
> interested, general public.
>
> Shouldn't this by itself give pause, and occasion for reflection,
> to all concerned -- not least of all to those who have actually
> participated in bringing the project to fruition ?
>
> That's the real issue, no ? Was the chosen approach indeed
> the best one ? A right one ? Why has such a large portion
> of the projected, and potential, market not been convinced ?
> And what can be done to right the matter -- beyond pathetic
> appeals to reconsider and finally shell out that three grand,
> aimed at the hardcore LIS education sector ? Are there
> perhaps broader implications here for questions of scholarly
> communication, professional development, and progress in
> our field ? For the health, or even survival, of our field ?
>
> Silly questions ? Anyway, enough questions.
>
> And answers ?
>
>
> - Laval Hunsucker
> Breukelen, Nederland
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sue Easun <
[log in to unmask]>
> To:
[log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 1:36:53 AM
> Subject: Re: A special appeal
>
>> > "Freely available" is not the same thing as "free."
>>
>> I did not say that it was.
> I see. I assumed when you countered the horrendouus $3,000 price tag with
> your previous offer "to make the chapters freely available on E-LIS," that
> you were negating the need for cost recovery. So is it the publisher's
> profit margin you think out of line?
>
>> > Money still has to change hands at some point. And I see there are
>> a
>> > lot of organizations putting membership and other dollars into
>> > E-LIS.
>>
>> I am not aware of that. As far as I understand, CILEA maintains
>> the
>> server. The editors work as volunteers.
> Then CILEA is paying for the server space!!!! My point is, someone/thing is.
> Nice that CILEA can afford it.
> And while E-LIS may be "freely available" now--discounting, of course, the
> fact that someone/thing is paying for the internet access by which each of
> us gets to the site in the first place--will it be able to do so ad
> infinitum? Let's hope so.
> (Guess all of the other associations listed are just providing the
> equivalent of a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Sorry if I
> misunderstood.)
> It's easy to forget that big bad corporate publishers absorb a lot of costs
> we take for granted when singing the praises of "free availability."
> I guess what annoyed me about the original message was the public slap at
> Marcia and Mary for wasting their time, and the efforts of their
> contributors--for example, and I quote, "most of us just don't need these
> articles"--when they were simply wanting to generate more sales.
> SueE
> Sue Easun
>
ca.linkedin.com/in/sueeasun
