Comments on: How Libraries Can Find Money in Clouds

By: DI: externalisation = cheval de Troie « pintiniblog

DI: externalisation = cheval de Troie « pintiniblog — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:56:43 +0000

[...] dans Yet Another Trojan Horse: “Outsource Your Institutional Repositories”, à cette improbable proposition de J. [...]

By: Christopher Gutteridge

Christopher Gutteridge — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:25:15 +0000

It’s not really about who does the work, so much as who makes the rules.

It’s the difference between hiring a company to promote and distribute your bands music, verses signing your rights over to a record label and being at their mercy.

What is important is where the power lies, and who owns the data. Commercial companies can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with something so important. They’ve already tried other iffy tactics: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/09/yesterday-new-s/

By: Amanda R

Amanda R — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:57:55 +0000

It seems, though, that several commenters are making the suggestion that these services are not “free”, but rather may contain their own hidden costs. Digital Commons may very well be such a “white label” solution because it contains preservation methods and non-exclusive licensing agreements similar to those that would be established by libraries, if libraries were setting up their own local repository.

In other words, how do you, as a responsible archivist, ensure your document will exist 100 years from now? 50? 10? You’d need assurances about data back-up, metadata maintenance, format conversion, and more. Does Scribd provide those services? Would anyone be able to provide all that and still be free?

To be honest, I’m not sure if Scribd addresses these issues. I haven’t had time to look through the user agreement — maybe it does. But I believe we need to address those details if we’re recommending Scribd as a legitimate alternative.

By: Joseph J. Esposito

Joseph J. Esposito — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:02:31 +0000

I’m afraid Professor Harnad is once again simply uninformed and incurious. This is not a matter of outsourcing vs. “build your own.” Many academic IRs are already outsourced. Professor Harnad should take a look at the client list at http://bepress.com, which markets the Digital Commons service. This is a “white label” outsourced (SAAS or Software as a Service) solution. Among the many clients of BEPress is the University of California, a leader in open access publishing. Let’s focus on the real problem, which is the high cost of maintaining services in house that would otherwise be free.

By: Stevan Harnad

Stevan Harnad — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:45:55 +0000

YET ANOTHER TROJAN HORSE: “OUTSOURCE YOUR IRs”

If universities were to prove foolish enough to scrap their own Institutional Repositories, renouncing their efforts to reclaim custody of their own research assets at long last, to heed instead the siren call to entrust them yet again to 3rd parties — and commercial ones like scribd, to boot — then, frankly, they are unsalvageable and deserve everything that’s coming to them.

I don’t for a minute, however, believe that the Academy would fall for this, having been once bitten, now twice shy, any more than they are falling for the concerted bid by some publishers to “leave the open-access archiving to us!” http://bit.ly/bYjB3

Rather, this is a highly anomalous and dysfunctional era of academic “outsourcing” that is happily nearing its well-deserved end.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:06:00 +0000

Another lesson in the transience of popular internet sites can be gained from watching the current disappearance of Myspace. For archives that are supposed to have some permanence, jumping on a trendy and currently successful business is a risky move.

By: Mark Anderson-Wilk

Mark Anderson-Wilk — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:34:43 +0000

Institutional repositories represent a commitment to preservation, as David Crotty suggests. Scribd may be an interesting and useful access and dissemination technology, but I don’t see how the preservation objectives of repositories could be assured with it.

Also, repositories aren’t necessarily associated with an “all in one place” credo, as multiple copies of works often exist with the publisher, the LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program, etc., in addition to the repository copy.

By: Vinay Rale

Vinay Rale — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:45:47 +0000

Whatever are the arguments , print resource support to teachers and students is vital and we must find out ways to overcome current problems.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:09:15 +0000

Note that Elsevier is apparently offering archiving services as well:
http://stwem.com/2009/06/22/elsevier-sets-its-sights/

By: Richard Sever

Richard Sever — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:01:12 +0000

I have frequently wondered how libraries can simultaneously complain about serials costs/budget cuts while spending large sums developing repositories. My understanding, however, is that this often involves a different department with a different budget. If so, it wouldn’t be the first example of this sort of apparent financial doublethink in a university – or any other organization for that matter.

Joe is also right that the ‘all in one place’ solution is backward looking. But I suspect there is an additional motivation here: control/possession of the information and the fear that ‘clouds’ are rather transient in nature…