Global open resources – discussions, suggestions, links, knowledge – where all share in exploring
https://cosmosmagazine.com/history/archaeology/oldest-neanderthal-cave-engravings-france/ Cosmos offers newsletters, but still seems to separate the whole world into publishers, authors, readers in a strict hierarchy. The articles are difficult to read, not using explicit references with title, authors and affiliations. Just hyperlinks hidden under fairly generic words like “recent studies”, “published”. The users experience is jarring. Going from Cosmos style to whatever style the site closer to the authors chooses. Sometimes it never gets to the authors at all. If the data and work is kept in a global open resource, then all links would go to a place linked and accessible by readers and authors, even writers and researchers who work as “publishers” or “sites”.
The Internet has more powerful ways to encourage global collaboration. To build global communities of humans interested in things. Why are readers forced to stay readers? Comments and ideas lost? Why are authors, who read voraciously, not just “members of the community”? Why do many publishers diminish themselves, or inflate themselves?
If we are all humans, why use categories that were not that useful hundreds of years ago? Members of the human species, humans trying to live lives with dignity and purpose, all knowledge accessible to all.
Filed as (Global open resources – discussions, suggestions, links, knowledge – where all share in exploring)
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
