> Contents of
> all scholarly publications -- books and journal articles -- should be
> digitized and made accessible to all. All cities, towns, and
> villages should follow Dayton's example (cf,
> <http://www.ci.dayton.oh.us/news/news_data/wifidowntowncomplete.asp>)
> and make free wireless broadband available. Then, more people will
> have a chance to make use of scholarly research.
I must be missing something here. You are promoting wider access to scholarly publications (something I agree with) but your example is WiFi in downtown Dayton. Content versus means? There are many issues around wider access to library content (didn't the Netherlands just announce a big public effort to make their library content more widely available?) that are far more interesting than Dayton WiFi.
The issue should be about public/private content. There is a struggle between private content holders and public scholarship; one that is played out differently with elite private universities signing deals with each other and governments making public library material open. There are also important issues about filtering and censorship.
So I am baffled why a private alliance in Dayton to provide spotty WiFi access to the internet (which is about alot more than scholarly content, or so I have heard) is such a good example (and a good example of what?). Public (potentially a more interesting model than Dayton) WiFi has been largely a failure for a lot of technical reasons (there are businesses that manage to pull it off in small spaces and a few cities--Cork? Philly? Aruba?) and economic reasons.
There are progressive arguments against public WiFi as well. Its socialism for the high tech commuter/consumer. I personally see it akin to public golf courses (I draw the line at public marinas though!); I am not against it if people want it but I wouldn't fight for it either.
Jim
"People steal, they cheat and lie For wealth and what it will buy"
-Hank Williams