The link is to Angie Greenham's Craft Baker blog, which I have just come across. Angie is a fan of Ken Robinson, and she follows up the linked piece with another continuing the argument.
Incidentally, here is a link to an animation of one of Sir Ken's recent talks (October 2010) which is not only impressive as a multi-channel communication exercise, but a whirlwind tour of his thinking.
I'm afraid that as I commented some time ago, I find Sir Ken's thinking utopian, sympathetic though I may be to his vision. He is thinking along similar lines to Matthew Crawford and Richard Sennett, but I can't help thinking that their vision is a sort of 21st century arts and crafts movement, and about as relevant to most of us as William Morris and co. were to their contemporaries.
Even so, it's a good debate to have, even if the answers need to be different.
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ideology. Show all posts
01 February 2011
07 April 2010
On a minor dilemma
...which probably afllicts many people with a web presence from time to time.
I was approached by email, and very politely and punctiliously, by someone requesting permission to use material from my site, on a course this person was running. No problem. The pages are explicitly covered by a standard form of Creative Commons licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
But the email included a link to the site of the institute/clinic my correspondent represented. Frankly I found it dubious, promoting a range of "alternative" therapies and "wellness" interventions. I have no problem with the latter. If people want to spend their money on something which they believe will make them feel even better, regardless of any evidence, that is up to them; but I have serious reservations about the former. If there is evidence to support "alternative" medicine, it's not "alternative", it is just medicine.
The use to which my correspondent wished to put my material seemed quite straightforward--to print it out as a handout to support a teaching session on a mainstream and almost uncontentious topic. And my correspondent did not have to ask. I'm sure my stuff is printed out and used thus hundreds of times a day without anyone taking the trouble to ask. And the Creative Commons licence does specify;
So, should/could I have applied different rules to this request because of my views of the ideology of the sponsoring institution?
I was approached by email, and very politely and punctiliously, by someone requesting permission to use material from my site, on a course this person was running. No problem. The pages are explicitly covered by a standard form of Creative Commons licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
But the email included a link to the site of the institute/clinic my correspondent represented. Frankly I found it dubious, promoting a range of "alternative" therapies and "wellness" interventions. I have no problem with the latter. If people want to spend their money on something which they believe will make them feel even better, regardless of any evidence, that is up to them; but I have serious reservations about the former. If there is evidence to support "alternative" medicine, it's not "alternative", it is just medicine.
The use to which my correspondent wished to put my material seemed quite straightforward--to print it out as a handout to support a teaching session on a mainstream and almost uncontentious topic. And my correspondent did not have to ask. I'm sure my stuff is printed out and used thus hundreds of times a day without anyone taking the trouble to ask. And the Creative Commons licence does specify;
Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
So, should/could I have applied different rules to this request because of my views of the ideology of the sponsoring institution?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
