On 13 Nov 2004, at 06:54, Rick Anderson wrote:
> Look, obviously we're proceeding from a different set of definitions
> here.
indubitably
> My point is simply that the word "publish" has a real-world definition
> that is far different from the artificially narrow one created by the
> OA establishment.
It may have many real-world definitions or uses, and in fact the OED
lists several
(1) To make publicly or generally known; to declare or report openly or
publicly; to announce; to tell or noise abroad; also, to propagate,
disseminate
(2) To announce in a formal or official manner
I really do not think that the OA establishment (establishment? what
establishment?) has coined a new definition, rather that it is trying
to work with the definitions used by other people (establishments, if
you will). Hence the academic and scholarly establishment have a clear
idea (or rather "clear ideas") of what constitutes a "formal and
official" manner of announcing new research results- usually peer
reviewed journal or conference articles. This is the most pertinent
meaning of "publish" that OA has to address, and it is why "to
propagate/disseminate", although a perfectly good interpretation of
"publish" in most of the "real world" is actually inaccurate and
misleading within this part of the real world - the part that
researchers inhabit.
> If using the Berlin Declaration definition helps you do your work,
> fine.
The Berlin use (again, not a new meaning) helps us communicate about
our work.
> But don't yell at (or condescend to) the rest of the world when it
> insists on using the real-world definition.
The rest of the world needs informing when it makes miscomments and
promulgates misunderstandings. I hope that this isn't, of itself, a
condescending position, but it is a rather necessary one as
journalists, politicians, commentators and even researchers get
themselves tied up in knots when they start to reason using the wrong
definitions.
---
Les Carr
Received on Sun Nov 14 2004 - 10:18:18 GMT