Maha, we all have a duty of respect and my membership in Amnesty International would be meaningless without my believing that works all ways. A person and their thoughts (even in writing and paid for) are not common property to be exchanged, borrowed or used by others in any manner without explicit permission.

I agree with most things open but there are people who presume they can take by virtue of giving their “valuable” opinion or offering “exposure to a wider audience” and then turn around and refuse you a response. If these people make money in writing their opinion then they are in the market place of ideas and can’t fiddle with values as if they were innocents.

In the Rhizo group I accept that we are in a state of exchange where group use is unrestricted by me because I get equal or greater value from the group. Where I stop is in the notion that we are some sort of public property there for the picking by others outside the group who would use us to their advantage. There’s plenty of need within the group for publishing credits “earned” by group participation and particularly by people early in their career who could have taken other paths but stayed to give us the value of their participation.

I guess I feel like there are levels of openness. Especially within the free exchange area I see use tied to some sort of “earned” privilege in the form of personal participation or direct support. Privileges of access and use by third parties feels wrong to be called “open.”

Related to your previous blog I think this book is very cool” The Work of the Imagination” in the Understanding Children’s Worlds series by Paul L. Harris, Blackwell Publishing 2000 and 2007. Make-Believe is actually quite complex. The book covers studies on early childhood beliefs and behaviours that go way beyond what we believe the kids are thinking. I was raised on the theories of Dr Spock (the Earth version) and don’t recommend it.