Edit- this situation has resolved itself amicably. The ACCG has/are in the process of changing their statement and we are having a very interesting discussion about laws regarding the importing of antiquities. Overall, it has been a busier weekend then what I would have liked but one that has been well worth the time. I am learning lots. All webpages have been returned to their normal appearance.
Posted in: Publishing, Wildcard
Doug's Archaeology 
Peter K. Tompa
May 25, 2012
(some comments removed for rudeness, please re-post without using attacks)
As to what this has to do with import restrictions point, see my blog here: http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/04/aia-seeks-to-maintain-monopoly-on.html Basically, it is fair to point out that the AIA has suggested in public meetings before the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee that import restrictions are necessary to promote numismatic research which then can be shared with the public.
Incidentally, it is the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild, not the American Coin Collectors Guild as you state. (Though, of course, you are correct to point out the error related to the AIA.).
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa, ACCG Board Member
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 25, 2012
Hmmm this happens alot. You are confusing the free part of Open Access (you and the AIA have a lot more in common than you think 🙂 ). Open Access is about removing the barriers of “cost” from the equation not the barriers to all research. For example open access would not entail publishing site locations for fear of looting. What it would entail is publishing a report about the site with the sensitive information removed. Happens all the time in science e.g. infectious disease papers post about the disease but not how to create said disease
Here is a resource to learn more about the difference- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
Alfredo De La Fe
May 25, 2012
Doug, I think the bottom line issue is one of control. Large organizations object to “open access” or “open source” initiatives because they do not like to lose control. In this case, the AIA does not want to give up control of “its” publications. (In reality, the work was written by someone else, usually for free) The argument against publishing data collected from unprovenanced artifacts is also mostly about control.
No one is saying that the AIA should make everything they publish immediately available for free. I wholeheartedly believe that if they made past articles available for free or even just to subscribers of their journal, they would not lose a single subscriber and quite possibly would gain a few. In either case, this point is moot- the “Federal Research Public Access act of 2012” deals specifically with work done using financial resources provided by the Federal government- my tax dollars. To force a citizen to pay twice (once via their tax dollars and the second time via the $12 JSTOR fee PER DOCUMENT) is just plain wrong.
I have dedicated THOUSANDS of hours towards building tools to help people share information freely as well as publishing a free Journal (while not peer reviewed, we have had some excellent articles) Why do I do this? Because unlike the AIA in this particular case, I actually believe in the priciples which they spell out in their mission statement.
So, perhaps the Press Release should have been a bit longer to make clear that the two issues are separate but related, but no one is perfect and I dont think that anyone will walk away after reading the press release confusing both issues, it does, afterall, say “attitudeS and policieS”
Instead of being upset and critical, perhaps you should see this as the opportunity that it actually is. This press release is bringing attention to an issue that clearly is important to you and your fellow volunteers. If there are issues you feel should be corrected, reach out to the ACCG, post comments on the various sites which are discussing it and dont assume that your inquiries will be met with silence- you just may be surprised to find that “we” welcome dialogue. (I do not represent the ACCG, but I do share many of their positions)
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 25, 2012
I would also add fear. If you give away your journal articles for free then why would someone pay to be a member? I personally think that people join for other reasons and it is a misplaced fear but that’s the thing with fear it dose not have to be based in fact.
I think you and I are on the same page as far as Open Access goes and the need for it.
I don’t see how the two are related. Though as you say the press release could have been longer and if so that might have explained it.
Though to give some insight into my line of thinking about the issue so you may understand some of my reactions- the ACCG released a press release, press release not blog post, about our work. This concerned me for three reasons 1. the ACCG does not say they are against it first but that we are. It makes me a bit suspicious that they don’t come out against the AIA on the issue, yes criticism is there but they never say we are against their statement. 2. They never say they are for Open Access. That collectors widely support it, yes but they never say ACCG supports open access. 3. They bring in a unrelated issue (at least not well explained why this issue is connected).
From my point of view this screams like they are using us as a proxy in a long argument they have had with the AIA. It appears, to me, that we are being used to score political points and the ACCG does not actually care about Open Access.
I say this all as coming from my perceptions not the ACCG’s intentions. I don’t know their intentions so all I have to go on is their actions. Which I think we can see may not have come across as the most honorable (not the right word but seem politically motivated) .
Back to press releases- the reason I changed the website instead of comment was because it was a press release and not a blog post. If it was a blog post I would have contacted them about changing it. With a press release there is the chance it gets picked up by a news agency and is out of the control of both the ACCG and ourselves. Timing was a bit of an issue. Though I admit I need to contact the ACCG and will do so as you suggest.
Chuck Jones
May 25, 2012
I think it fair to say that AIA does not take the position espoused in the president’s editorial, and that there is a complex spectrum of opinion within the organization and its membership.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 25, 2012
And I am informed they are creating some sort of task to look at the issue of Open Access. It is good to remember that the AIA, and ACCG, are organizations with multiple views and changing views as well. While I will keep up pressure on both, and some times not in the most tactful of ways, I think we should also remember that this is only one subject and there are many other great things both organizations do.
Chuck Jones
May 25, 2012
Yes, and I have been appointed to that task force. I’m trying to listen carefully to many voices in the conversation.
Alfredo De La Fe
May 25, 2012
Chuck, I could agree with that. But the same could be said about their positions on the market and “unprovenanced antiquities”. Just look at the past presidents of the AIA- if I am not mistaken, werent a few avid collectors? Whenever the lead spokesperson of an organization makes such a public statement, and worse, a statement representing the organization and it’s members to our elected officials it becomes a position statement for the entire organization.
Chuck Jones
May 25, 2012
Thanks Alfredo, and yes what you say is correct – leadership of organizations needs to be clear whether it is speaking personally or institutionally. But while AIA does have officially adopted policies on unprovenanced antiquities and issues surrounding their collection, publication, and so on (http://www.archaeological.org/about/policies), it does not have an official position on open access, and to the best of my knowledge the issue has not (yet) been substantively and openly discussed by its leadership (though a process to do so is now underway).
Chuck Jones
May 25, 2012
In your response (https://dougsarchaeology.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/archaeological-institute-of-america-back-tracks-on-stance-against-open-access/) to Liz Bartman’s editorial in Archaeology magazine, the link to her second statement should be to http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/8905
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 25, 2012
Thanks, updated
Nathan Elkins
May 25, 2012
Excellent post, Doug! I enjoyed reading it.
wgsant
May 25, 2012
Thanks Doug for your clear thinking and direct points. Since I am the responsible party for the ACCG release, you can consider this an official ACCG reply. I think we are far closer in our beliefs and positions than you might imagine. There are inevitable problems with a release that deals with a complex issue and multiple positions. Reporters have the luxury of making a point and following up or expanding within the same document. Since we work on a budget and are limited to 400 words, that becomes problematic. We issue periodic press releases (which are of course paid for) as a way to raise issues that we think are important. We believe that your stand on Open Access is important and we share your position, even the implication in our release was not a clear as it might have been. We try.
I was kindly invited to participate in the CBP symposium at Newcastle in 2010 and found there that ancient coin collectors and archaeologists can work together. It bothers me more than a little that I had to discover that in Britain rather than in my own country. I apologize for calling OAA a “watchdog” group if you do not see yourselves that way. It appeared that way to me from what I read, and was frankly intended as a compliment. But, clearly, you do watch the activity of other organizations on issues that concern you and rightfully so.
Yes, the ACCG release did shift gears, so to speak, and was not solely about Open Access. Though we share that concern, and have for a very long time, out crises in America is one that involves law and its administration. It is not even a moral question to us, since morals and ethics are widely subjective. Law is not. The ACCG and AIA are at opposite poles when it comes to matters of law. We need, in fairness to our constituents, to keep constantly on track in that matter. Therein, I believe lies part of the problem as you see it. We could have done better with 800 words, if anybody would have read them and we could have afforded them.
Thank you for moving the discussion to your altered web page — a creative idea, I must admit, and one I heartily support. I’m pleased to see that our release did prompt that move toward direct and open dialogue and I intend to move over there shortly.
Wayne G. Sayles
Executive Director, Ancient Coin Collectors Guild
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 25, 2012
Wayne, thank you for responding and thank you for clearing up your positions. I understand limits in words can muddle clarity. It also shows we need to work on the message of what OAA is. A weakness on our part.
I am still not sure how the two are connected but I think it would be great to work with you all on the two issues separately if you are game.
I feel there is lots of room for Open Access to really help people who are interested in the past learn more about it. I think there is a lot there everyone could benefit from.
As for the issue of import laws maybe we could break that off into a separate thing, and by that I mean website, TV show, book, etc. media. Maybe something a little more official than comments at the bottom of web pages ( that was me just throwing stuff together) . I know you say the ACCG and the AIA are on different ends of law but maybe a conversation about why that is. Maybe instead of a debate a there is a focus on solutions. I know that sounds all peace, love, flower power crap-like but it would be great to have a conversation over a debate.
This is just me spitballing late on a Friday but if you are interested we can discuss it more over the weekend. I sent you an email and Alfredo has mine as well.
Though I am going to go eat dinner and enjoy my friday evening now so I might not respond till later.
Alfredo De La Fe
May 25, 2012
Doug- I think it is safe to assume that this is a goal which you, Wayne, Peter and the ACCG share in common.
Enjoy dinner and have a great weekend!