The CARE Framework

David Wiley, iterating toward openness, Mar 15, 2018
Commentary by Stephen Downes
files/images/CARE_Framework.PNG

David Wiley responds to the CARE Framework (previously in OLDaily). He makes two major points. First, not everyone has the luxury to contribute to the  "hard, frequently painful, and seldom recognized work associated with stewardship." And second, "the document also contributes to the (much more active) conversation about who deserves to be allowed to participate in the OER movement." I think he's wrong on both counts. By analogy, it's like CARE is saying 'we are all stewards of the environment' and Wiley is saying 'We can't all get jobs as forest rangers', which while true, is irrelevant. Being a steward means respecting it, protecting it, and not destroying it. Wiley's second point is like saying 'we can't destroy it, no matter how we use it, because it's non rivalrous'. But openness can be destroyed; I have discussed the phenomenon of 'conversion' in the past, and it is this (and not some unthinking prejudice) that causes me to distrust commercial publishers and other bad actors.

Views: 0 today, 519 total (since January 1, 2017).[Direct Link]
Creative Commons License. gRSShopper

Copyright 2015 Stephen Downes ~ Contact: stephen@downes.ca
This page generated by gRSShopper.
Last Updated: Aug 22, 2018 12:15 a.m.