Mike Caulfield clarifies, helpfully, that it is not Jon Mott that Leigh Blackall and I criticize. It is rather the system of academic publishing, which as a matter of routine devalues the contributions of people who publish elsewhere. "If you want to get something published, you have to choose to source stuff to peer reviewed journals, not blogs. This results in a sort of idea laundering that serves to hide the fact these ideas are coming from those crazy bloggers that everyone derides. And because these articles don't redirect people into the conversation that produced the ideas in the first place, it keeps the people dependent on EDUCAUSE reports dependent on EDUCAUSE reports. Which is, of course, the entire point of the current conventions."
Today: 3 Total: 20 [Direct link] [Share]
