“Journalists, like moths and drunks, seem attracted, irresistibly, where the light shines, not where the key lies” CRITIQUE OF : Goldacre, Ben (2007) Open access and the price of knowledge . The Guardian , Saturday February 10, 2007. (Also appeared in badscience.net ) Ben Goldacre has his heart in the right place, but…”
Reading through this makes me think that Open Access needs some clear communication. The issues are a bit complex, but what is changing is the publishing medium – the middle man – and the publishing houses are in dire need of reinvent themselves. However the knowledge owners producing the information ought to be doing a bit more hard thinking as to how they want to share their goods.
Knowledge and information are often used interchangeably in the popular literature. Within the scope of innovation and technology, it is important to make a fundamental distinction about the true nature of the two. Information is archival and slow, that is, information is the resource contained in recording media from books, to hieroglyphs and databases. Information is static, archival and one of the resources upon which knowledge draws. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is a resource residing within cognitive beings. Knowledge is a synthesis of information and experience; it is fast and dynamic, not necessarily archival. For example, if you provide a well trained electrician with all the legal information on a specific topic and ask him a concrete question about that issue, the electrician will not give you the answer immediately; he will have to read all the information on the legal aspects of the question, study and learn, and then will provide you with an adequate answer after a certain time of either days or weeks. If you pose the same problem to a lawyer, he will provide you the answer either immediately or within some minutes. The electrician had information, the lawyer had knowledge, the difference is speed.
Who owns information?
Who owns knowledge?