Open it up!

This week's digital history class centred around the concepts of open access and open source. Open sourcing refers to programs that allows the user to view, and alter source code. By opening up the guts of a program and letting millions of users tinker around, make changes, make improvements, make frankensteins, etc open source software allows users to alter a program until it works for them. No one individual can be credited with developing an awesome program, instead it is a product of thousands of different needs, perspectives and processes. I find it incredible that open source programs not only exist, but are, along with professional developers paid by Gates and Jobs, responsible for the evolution of the internet.

There are so many free alternatives now. Open Office can be used in lieu of Word and, unless you're doing some professional-level design, Gimp works great for image manipulation. I think what's needed is a change of mentality. Finding the right program can be more challenging than using the default Mac or PC version but the results can be better tailored to your needs. Better programs overtake redundant or ineffective ones so that while you have to keep yourself informed you also get the best tool for the job. It seems like patience and an exploratory nature are key virtues when diving into the world of open source programs which are not often, especially in their alpha and beta stages, refined products. There are bugs, there are oversights, there's a learning curve, but ultimately you're getting something for free created by your fellow interneters rather than a mega-corporation (insert ominous music here).

Before I go, I have one thought on open access that I'd like to put out there. Roy Rosenzweig discussed many options for increased access to scholarly works in his essay "Should Historical Scholarship Be Free?" including charging the authors, self-archiving and partial access. I found his argument for electronic only journals quite compelling; as a graduate student who has never read an actual physical journal, I feel no particular affinity towards print journals. I was surprised, however, that he didn't focus more on advertising as a way to off-set costs both for new and established journals. Journals such as J-stor could perhaps have two tiers, one with an abundance of directed, Google-style advertisements and delayed access to material and a premium paid subscription with no ads and immediate access. While I don't like the idea of ads in academia, I also don't agree with universities paying $60,000  for one bundle of journals. I would also imagine that advertisers would be eager to tap into an affluent, educated market. I wonder if the advertising revenues would be enough to satiate publishers...

Though I believe in open source and open access whole-heartedly I do feel a little hypocritical or at least like a web-mooch as I have never contributed to anything open sourced, yet I reap the benefits from such programs all the time. I am so comfortable in my role as a consumer of the web that I forget I can also be a producer. Professor MacDougall has asked us to edit a Wikipedia page by next week in order to be better informed for our discussion. Have to admit that I'm glad we've been given the push as editing Wikipedia has been something I been wanting to get into for a while. Stay tuned to find out how that experiment goes!