That is all.

In response to your comments, Eaddy, and to the notion of collective authorship in general: I think that history has given us a few examples of where collective authorship has been accepted, openly, over time. Political and legislative documents, the American Constitution for one, are given added reverance as collective documents – perhaps under the hopes that more voices lead to a greater sense of representation and inclusiveness within the meaning of a text.
Beyond that example, one of the most prevalent texts in the Western world, what we consider “The Bible,” has been proven by scholars to be the work of several “authors.” And, though the Bible is scrutinized and questioned for many diverse reasons, we rarely hear of scrutiny based on the multiplicity of authors. I am by no means a biblical scholar, but In retrospect, the nature of the work is appreciated as a text and not doubted based on authorship.
Perhaps, with time, the notion of collective authorship isn’t of great concern to a recursive public, as it is through the multiplicity of voices that further elaboration and inclusion is manifested.

After reading your Introduction, Chapter 8 and comments I am definitely more intrigued by the concept of ‘Free Software’ and more specifically, the project of Connexions. First of all, I noticed that you mentioned in your reply to one of the post’s that Vietnam’s government has adopted the Connexions method as a ‘platform’ for its use in the educational sector. I think this is fantastic opportunity for Vietnam to engage in promoting education in a modern way as well as providing outlets for widespread information sharing and knowledge for its students. I imagine that this was a big step for Vietnam, perhaps culturally? This point led me to think of questions concerning the lack of access as well as restrictions placed on the Internet and information sharing by some countries. I know Connexions is perceived as a ‘global’ project but what does this mean for the future of free software and freedom of expression with regard to countries such as China and North Korea or even to those who do not have access to the Internet at all? Do you believe this project will be able to affect or change these mentalities and national identities or even lessen the ‘digital divide’? I do agree with your point that ‘the fact that recursive publics respond in this way- through direct engagement and modification- is a key aspect of the reorientation of power and knowledge that Free Software exemplifies’, however, is it because of this ‘power’ and ‘knowledge’ that Connexions might not be promoted in certain cultures? Finally, I also really enjoyed your discussion about Lessigs Creative Common’s motto, ‘culture builds on the past…and that it need not be difficult to do so.’ (Chapter 8, p 55.) It can be argued that it is equally important to look to the past for inspiration, as it is to look to the future for new ideas and solutions and I do believe that collaboration is indeed a positive step forward.

You may speak of these issues elsewhere in your book, however any comments of some of these questions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for your time,

Sophie.

I am another AUP student. After reading your introduction and Chapter 8, I am really curious about the nature of the Connexions textbook.
How do you go about ensuring that an open/free-software textbook has more credibility than a wikipedia-type resource? Are there any limits to who can modulate the software? Who determines whether a person is a competent enough scholar to contribute? How does subjectivity factor into the larger work? If people can view various versions of the website, is there any concern that the most current version is not the most “correct” and that people who know little about the subject will be left in the dark? To what extent does reliance on a particular language, presumably English, hinder the level of open-ness that you are able to achieve?
You mentioned that subjects in the humanities do not factor well into the factory modules. Perhaps there is a potential for a humanities recursive public to modulate various interpretations of works of art or literature. As an English and Art History major, I agree with you that these subjects tend to require less linear forms of scholarship. Still, there is great potential to build up on the interdisciplinary nature of English and history, or art history and science, such as the laws of perspective or emerging awareness of correct anatomical drawing.
Finally, do you think the larger recursive public will be able to fully accept the notion of collaborative authorship? That is, will there be enough scholars willing to create valuable content in favor of the greater good, even if their individual name gets lost in the public sphere?
Connexions sounds like a fascinating operation and I hope it works out!

After reading your introduction and Chapter 8, I am really curious about the nature of the Connexions textbook.
How do you go about ensuring that an open/free-software textbook has more credibility than a wikipedia-type resource? Are there any limits to who can modulate the software? Who determines whether a person is a competent enough scholar to contribute? How does subjectivity factor into the larger work? If people can view various versions of the website, is there any concern that the most current version is not the most “correct” and that people who know little about the subject will be left in the dark? To what extent does reliance on a particular language, presumably English, hinder the level of open-ness that you are able to achieve?
You mentioned that subjects in the humanities do not factor well into the factory modules. Perhaps there is a potential for a humanities recursive public to modulate various interpretations of works of art or literature. As an English and Art History major, I agree with you that these subjects tend to require less linear forms of scholarship. Still, there is great potential to build up on the interdisciplinary nature of English and history, or art history and science, such as the laws of perspective or emerging awareness of correct anatomical drawing.
Finally, do you think the larger recursive public will be able to fully accept the notion of collaborative authorship? That is, will there be enough scholars willing to create valuable content in favor of the greater good, even if their individual name gets lost in the public sphere?

In Chapter 8 you mention that what often fascinates people about Connexions “is the idea of random and flexible connection”(253), the ability for users to create new modules and cross subjects. In your description of the experiment in Ch. 8, however you do not address if this also incorporates cross-cultural studies and how this experiment could be used on a global level. Do you think a collaborative textbook based on the principles of Free Software would have the possibility of creating education material that whose aims would be more cosmopolitan and multicultural? Since education is often considered a means for controlling national identity would you agree that experiments like Connexions help to change this structure and formation of identity.

And the answer is yes…Connexions is explicitly conceived as a global project. However, since it is not the project of any particular government or corporation, it is not designed with any particular national identity in mind… though one could a) use for any national project and b) argue that it reflects Euro-American values in its design. I think the latter is true, in that the very ideas of “culture building on the past” arise out of notions of constitutional right, intellectual property, and authorial control that are specific (if variable) to the US and Europe.

A good counter comparison might be this:
Archive created to allow Aborigines in Australia to control the circulation of their own culture. If you can understand the differences between that project and Connexions, you can see some of the ways in which these projects carry assumptions about culture with them.

After reading your Introduction, Chapter 8 and comments I am definitely more intrigued by the concept of ‘Free Software’ and more specifically, the project of Connexions. First of all, I noticed that you mentioned in your reply to one of the post’s that Vietnam’s government has adopted the Connexions method as a ‘platform’ for its use in the educational sector. I think this is fantastic opportunity for Vietnam to engage in promoting education in a modern way as well as providing outlets for widespread information sharing and knowledge for its students. I imagine that this was a big step for Vietnam, perhaps culturally? This point led me to think of questions concerning the lack of access as well as restrictions placed on the Internet and information sharing by some countries. I know Connexions is perceived as a ‘global’ project but what does this mean for the future of free software and freedom of expression with regard to countries such as China and North Korea or even to those who do not have access to the Internet at all? Do you believe this project will be able to affect or change these mentalities and national identities or even lessen the ‘digital divide’? I do agree with your point that ‘the fact that recursive publics respond in this way- through direct engagement and modification- is a key aspect of the reorientation of power and knowledge that Free Software exemplifies’, however, is it because of this ‘power’ and ‘knowledge’ that Connexions might not be promoted in certain cultures? Finally, I also really enjoyed your discussion about Lessigs Creative Common’s motto, ‘culture builds on the past…and that it need not be difficult to do so.’ (Chapter 8, p 55.) It can be argued that it is equally important to look to the past for inspiration, as it is to look to the future for new ideas and solutions and I do believe that collaboration is indeed a positive step forward.

You may speak of these issues elsewhere in your book, however any comments of some of these questions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you for your time,

Sophie.