Understanding Knowledge As a Commons: From Theory to Practice

by Charlotte Hess (Editor), Elinor Ostrom (Editor)

Knowledge in digital form offers unprecedented access to information through the Internet but at the same time is subject to ever-greater restrictions through intellectual property legislation, overpatenting, licensing, overpricing, and lack of preservation. Looking at knowledge as a commons--as a shared resource--allows us to understand both its limitless possibilities and what threatens it. In Understanding Knowledge as a Commons, experts from a range of disciplines discuss the knowledge commons in the digital era--how to conceptualize it, protect it, and build it.Contributors consider the concept of the commons historically and offer an analytical framework for understanding knowledge as a shared social-ecological system. They look at ways to guard against enclosure of the knowledge commons, considering, among other topics, the role of research libraries, the advantages of making scholarly material available outside the academy, and the problem of disappearing Web pages. They discuss the role of intellectual property in a new knowledge commons, the open access movement (including possible funding models for scholarly publications), the development of associational commons, the application of a free/open source framework to scientific knowledge, and the effect on scholarly communication of collaborative communities within academia, and offer a case study of EconPort, an open access, open source digital library for students and researchers in microeconomics. The essays clarify critical issues that arise within these new types of commons--and offer guideposts for future theory and Bollier, James Boyle, James C. Cox, Shubha Ghosh, Charlotte Hess, Nancy Kranich, Peter Levine, Wendy Pradt Lougee, Elinor Ostrom, Charles Schweik, Peter Suber, J. Todd Swarthout, Donald Waters

Genres: Economics, Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction

367 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2006

Reviews

[Kathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

These 12 chapters introduce the reader to issues about the complexities of knowledge and information as a dynamic common resource. The book is edited by Hess and Ostrom, and Ostrom's IAD (Institutional Analysis and Development) framework is referenced often. This framework is described as a "diagnostic tool that can be used to investigate any broad subject where humans repeatedly interact within rules and norms that guide their choice of strategies and behaviors." Open access, intellectual property, and preservation are discussed.

[William Crosby · Rating 4 out of 5]

A set of essays about knowledge as a commons. Libraries are often referred to as a major bastion of storing and disseminating a knowledge commons.

I read this book as part of my effort to understand this somewhat alien, nebulous and new (for me) concept of the commons.

Most of the essays are readable and good for the general public. A few were afflicted with terminology and academic convoluted syntax.

Still, overall a good book to read to attempt to understand the commons and its importance. You could be disappointed if you are already familiar with this concept and want more in-depth complex discussion.

[Fernando · Rating 1 out of 5]

Es un libro puramente descriptivo sobre aquello que la autora considera bienes comunes de la información. Utiliza solamente ejemplos de innovaciones tecnológicas aplicadas a la difusión de información en Estados Unidos especialmente a lo que se refiere a software libre, revistas de acceso abierto y digitalización de las bibliotecas. Más allá, apenas se refiere a la teoría de Ostrom sobre los bienes comunes. Es un libro en extremo aburrido, poco interesante, poco teórico, descriteriadamente extenso para repetir las mismas ideas una y otra vez. A ratos parece una declaración de buenos deseos sobre lo que le gustaría que sucediera.
No lo recomiendo, es una pérdida de tiempo, poco y nada puedes aprender de aquí.

[Pat Loughery · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good but very dated. Was already dated when it was published in 2007 based upon some of the references used.

I would love to read an update to this, because the subject is still important, and even more so today.

3.5 stars