The #AHAgate collection forum is now closed, after receiving an great showing of 48 submissions from 43 users, 222 votes, and many more visitors. Micah Vandegrift has written an excellent overview/introduction, and I am now reviewing reuse permissions and contacting authors.
Permissions request: I am asking all authors for reuse permission, and if they have any restrictions. Some pieces have explicit CC-BY open-access licenses, so full permission is in effect already granted, but nonetheless I'm asking everyone.
I'm still examining the publishing options, but here's what I'm curently thinking:
Collection will have compilation (c) Tim McCormick, but (c) in each included item retained by author. (normal compilation practice, I believe).
I will ask all authors for non-exclusive, worldwide, all-media reuse license.
I will make the Web collection and PDF ebook freely available, with (c) notices as above.
I will trial paid ePub / Kindle ebook editions, probably at $2.99 (Kindle minimum for full-royalties tier), and printed editions probably with CreateSpace at a higher price -- unless authors I wish to include express a Non-Commercial license restriction.
If enough authors do not wish to grant commercial reuse license, i.e. the ability to charge for ebook/print, then I will consider either a) excluding those authors from the paid editions; or b) making all editions no-charge. (removes my cost-recovery hopes & pricing experiment, but I'm mainly interested in learning here).
For anyone debating the commercial reuse issue, I should say that my main goal here is to do as useful an experiment as possible, and disseminate your work. Without the ability to charge, most likely no print edition will be done, and the options for ePub/Kindle distribution are significantly limited (because many platforms like Amazon/Kindle have a minimum price). Nonetheless, I respect your reuse wishes, and understanding them well is part of the experiment.
July 31, 2013. coming soon, a collection asking what is "Information Justice"? Does more accessible information have a democratizing, liberatory, or empowering tendency? or only under certain conditions? or negative, inequalizing, or instrumentalizing effects?
Should or how might history scholars’ work be made freely available
to anyone, “Open Access,” online? Should institutions require this of
students or faculty, or should it be the scholar’s choice?.Does making work publicly available impair prospects for career-critical book publishing, or is it helpful?
These were key issues in a raging debate set off by the American Historical Association's July 22 release of a draft policy proposal on embargoes for new PhD dissertations.
Open History: project introduction
July 23, 2013
Diego Rivera. "The Flower Carrier," 1935. SF MoMA.
This is a community curation site for the Open History project. The purpose is to allow items for compilations to be suggested, voted/prioritized, and reviewed.
The project arose out of a public controversy over the American Historical Association's proposed policy on PhD dissertation embargos. The Twitter account @OpenHistory was set up to track and record the online debate, then this site (adapting the Uservoice customer-feedback platform) as an experimental forum open to anyone to suggest, vote/prioritize, and review items for a proposed compilation volume.
To suggest or vote, you’ll need to either enter a valid email
address, or sign in with Facebook or Google+. In the current setup, you get ten votes, up to
three for any one item. I and helpers reserve final editorial judgment
on number and selection of items, and rejecting any suspicious votes.
I'd like to explore how to effectively curate topical discussions, and efficiently from them build high-quality, usable compilations or books. Vol 1: #AHAgate is for discussion around the AHA controversy, but if it seems interesting we may continue to new topics/debates.