« The invisible parts of publishing | Main | Endless Variety of Music »

June 12, 2008


Sukhdev Singh

The "2.0" qualifier is more often used in the context where readers themselves create content in a collaborative manner on the interactive web media. I was looking for this angle in Joe Esposito's article. However, I was bit disappointed as this aspect was missing. There is no 1.0 in Open Access. In fact, Open Access itself is "Access 2.0". This movement is all about scholars making their own scholarly literature accessible to their scholarly peers.

T Scott

I think you're reading too much into it -- I took Joe's use of "2.0" as a slightly tongue-in-cheek use of a qualifier that has been ridiculously overused. It's become one of those things that people use to mean whatever they want it to mean. ("Library 2.0" being the most egregious example). In Joe's sense here, it simply means that the discussion has moved from the binary all-or-nothing approach that characterized the early debates, to a more nuanced understanding that open access is just one option among many, suitable for certain areas within the information chain, but not necessarily for all.

The comments to this entry are closed.