QUOTE(The Joy @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 9:56pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 22nd July 2011, 12:36pm)
Somey, could you remind us, doesn't Ottava have some kind of "X posts per day" limit, or something?
He used to be on the Horological Egg-Timer (as Moulton called it), but I thought Ottava and Somey reached an accord about that?
Well, we did reduce the timer duration to 30 minutes, based on what we considered to be a significant improvement in his general mien,
so to speak. But shortly after that he posted a somewhat final-sounding bye-bye message and we didn't hear from him for several months - until just recently, that is.
I should say that this thread is a little hard to follow now, and it has been derailed to some degree - but that's not entirely Ottava's fault, despite his history of thread-derailment. The issue here isn't really whether or not academic journals are "highly" profitable, though to be honest I'm surprised anyone would argue that they are, at least not generally speaking. Moreover, I can't imagine anyone looking at sales/subscriber figures from the last 10-15 years (roughly corresponding with the internet era) and not seeing noticeable declines across the board.
To me, the issue here is the attitude of Wikipedians towards people who are trying to make a living as "knowledge workers" - and by that I mean anybody, at any level. Writers, researchers, editors, publishers, distributors, even the people who run the support machinery to some degree. I just can't see why it isn't more obvious to people that the more extreme attitudes we see from WPers (and Dave Gerard is one of the most extreme WPers of all) are based largely on jealousy, envy, and (as always) narcissism. They don't dislike the idea of getting paid to be smart; they dislike the fact that other people are getting paid, not them.
And if they honestly think they're doing the world a big favor by taking a pro-active stance against academic publishing,
they're dangerously deluded, and once again it's no wonder that people accuse them of cultishness because of things like that. So we can only hope that in this case, it's just Dave being Dave, and not something more widespread and (I daresay) sinister.