“What is open?” redux

Posted by karen on August 13, 2008 in Uncategorized

We spent a lot of time thinking about the license for the Kids Open Dictionary. Ultimately, we decided on public domain license, because we want this to be as easily usable by as many people as possible.

After announcing the dictionary on a few list-serv, we got some interesting feedback. First, many have wanted to know if the underlying software is available as open source. (The answer is that we intend to release it this way at some point, but we need to do some more work on it first. Also, it’s not very useful without the underlying database of definitions which needs to be created at a central site. Stay tuned….)

Secondly, there was a variety of input on the licensing. Some have objected to our public domain license, suggesting that a public domain license is not as “open” as a copyleft/sharealike license.

In my work with schools across the world, I’ve seen the challenges of sharealike licenses in restricting the ability to mix other content. Also, while I think sharing is good, I don’t feel compelled to force others to share. On a more practical level, with a dictionary, we want people to be able to mix and mash up this content with other content without the burden of thinking about license compatibility or even crediting a source. Glossaries are one of the most basic building blocks of many educational materials, and there are currently no sources (that we were able to find, after extensive research) that allow for low-burden reuse. Teachers have asked for this again and again, and in its absence, most are just stealing copyrighted content. That’s why we decided to spend so much of our own time to build this open dictionary.

I did get a very nice email from the folks at The Open Knowledge Foundation that prompted me to look at their definition of open. This seems to me to be a very broad and inclusive definition (and one that is developed in an open manner, something I see missing from many “open” committee-type meetings and discussions). It talks about issues like reuse, modifications, and technical format. It also says that in order to be open under their definition “[t]he license must not place restrictions on other works that are distributed along with the licensed work. For example, the license must not insist that all other works distributed on the same medium are open.”

I know that many will disagree with this. I just wish people could put a little of the energy they put into these discussions into writing a definition or two. :)

Tags: dictionary | licensing | share alike | public domain | open

No comments

Big week for the open dictionary

Posted by karen on August 9, 2008 in Uncategorized

We’ve had a lot of new activity at the Kids Open Dictionary this week, largely because of several posts others have written about it. New people have been coming to the site every day, adding words, creating glossaries, and helping making this a richer resource. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

As with anything on the Internet, I suppose, we’ve also heard some criticisms. Some of these have not been surprising to me (such as the seemingly incessant debate on which license is most “open”); others have come out of left field.

The most unexpected to me has been the suggestion that already-available, print-based commercial dictionaries are more than adequate, and that an open dictionary is unneeded or somehow even dangerous. I so adamantly believe in the need for differentiation in education and the necessity of a mix-up culture for creating appropriate learning resources, that this is an anathema to me. The whole point of OER is to provide better learning resources.

Textbooks are incomprehensible to many students. Vocabulary is a stumbling block for many learners. It is all well and good to tell students to look up words in a dictionary (if they have one available). My experience as a teacher, though, is that unless a kid has a dictionary right there in-hand, they are unlikely to do so.

Context is everything. Research shows that having definitions linked directly to the reading material increases comprehension. We have seen this in classrooms with the interactive ebooks we have created. Providing students with linked glossaries has helped with reading comprehension and built student confidence and enthusiasm for reading.

Commercial dictionaries don’t provide teachers the opportunity to mix content to provide this kind of context and interactivity. Legally, their definitions cannot be copied and pasted into other materials or edited to suit the context at hand (though we know many teachers do that anyway for the benefit of their students). Beyond that, commercial dictionaries often have definitions that are written at a language level that is not accessible to kids. (We’ve already heard a few adults say that a kids dictionary would be a useful resource to them.) These are just a few of the reasons we’ve started this open dictionary.

Beyond all this, I guess I don’t understand criticizing something that is free, open, and motivated only by creating a resource to improve education. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. If you do, come write a definition or two. We know that kids, teachers, and learners around the world will benefit.

Tags: dictionary | open | oer | differentianting instruction

No comments