Week 5 focused on content producers making their materials freely available online. Open access was the last topic of this year’s module. I tried to make the most when designing this week’s info-graphics, ranging from my own video to an interactive vote.

Patricia and I discussed various topics, such as identifying reliable online information and the trouble newspaper companies are currently facing. Although Patricia mentioned online resources that help distinguish reputable resources, we agreed that information overload on the web made it difficult to identify. In actual fact, it made me realise that I have never been taught how to make this distinction. Moreover, we had a discussion about the newspaper industry, and their attempt to build a new relationship between readers and writers in order to stop the decline of newspaper circulation. We have found that the reward system could potentially benefit both.

Brad highlighted the passionate element of my blog as I strongly pointed out that writers should receive more credit for their work. I shared an article with him showing how Turkey pays a monthly minimum wage for carrying out research in various scientific fields. However, this was only established recently. Brad correctly mentioned that almost all writers receive little to no compensation for their efforts, which I simply find unfair. Raziya informed me on how charity open access funds mainly partnered up with scientific areas to the expense of other fields. This had me frustrated, as I can’t understand how someone can view one field as more important than another.

Finally Andrei and I spoke about paywalls and the hope that someone will find some sort of middle ground to support both parties. I can honestly say that this week’s topic has me torn both ways. As a student I support open access, but I cannot agree with the payment system.

205 words

Advertisements