Slashdot Mirror
Coursera Commits 'Cultural Vandalism' As Old Platform Shuts (i-programmer.info)
Reader mikejuk writes: Coursera has announced that 30 June is the date when it will shut down the servers hosting courses that were the first, free, offerings on its platform. The new model isn't just a revised interface, it is also a new monetization model, and presumably the decision to throw out all the original free content, by shutting the platform, is motivated by greedy commercialism. You could say that the golden age of the MOOC (a course of study made available over the Internet without charge to a very large number of people) is over with the early enthusiastic pioneers doing it because they were passionate about their subject and teaching it being replaced by a bunch of "lets teach a course because it's good for my career and ego" with subjects being selected by what will sell.
Closing down the old platform is an unnecessary destruction of irreplaceable content. Coursera needs to rethink this policy that goes against everything it originally stood for. The courses affected are from the early days of the MOOC that are likely to be important in the history of their subject. The most relevant for us, but far from the only one, is Geoffrey Hinton's Neural Networks for Machine Learning which gave a "deep" insight into the way he thinks and how neural networks work.
Something has to be done to preserve this important record -- they don't have to turn off the servers just because they have a new platform.Dhawal Shah, founder of Class Central has written about ways one can download Coursera's courses before they're gone.
Closing down the old platform is an unnecessary destruction of irreplaceable content. Coursera needs to rethink this policy that goes against everything it originally stood for. The courses affected are from the early days of the MOOC that are likely to be important in the history of their subject. The most relevant for us, but far from the only one, is Geoffrey Hinton's Neural Networks for Machine Learning which gave a "deep" insight into the way he thinks and how neural networks work.
Something has to be done to preserve this important record -- they don't have to turn off the servers just because they have a new platform.Dhawal Shah, founder of Class Central has written about ways one can download Coursera's courses before they're gone.
a.k.a. If you enjoy teaching and you're teaching what you love, you shouldn't mind not getting paid for it. Not like higher education instructors have terrible pay already.
So, some people are pissed off that someone that was free now costs money. How is this cultural vandalism? What the fuck is cultural vandalism anyways? Did someone graffiti some ethnic restaurants?
...not agree to keep paying for offering it free forever?
It's their platform. If they want to change it up, start charging or whatever, that's their right. People sure do whine a lot in 2016.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Any free-tiered service is unfair. Trent Reznor said it, so it must be true.
to bother trying to "save" these. Python? ... scipt? And going through all those titles? Like judging a book by its cover. Just! Let! Those! Die!
You can't claim that someone is committing cultural vandalism and in the same breath provide instructions on how to preserve something. Just because someone created something or provided a host platform in the first place doesn't obligate them to preserve that platform at that price for eternity.
It's free. Download it. If you want to preserve it then do so, but don't have a whinge when someone else doesn't want to.
Slashdot must keep this post for ever - to delete it would be cultural vandalism!
The Way-Back-Machine helps preserve deleted content.
In related news, Ms. Petterline retired from teaching the third grade at Chesterfield Elementary this year. The cultural vandalism she is about to commit by never again providing a free 3rd grade education to 20-30 students once a year is truly shocking.
She needs to be cloned so that she can continue teaching and passing along her valuable skillset FOREVER!
It's like the neighborhood vacant lot when I was a kid. The owner back then didn't seem to mind that we set up a great bicycle racetrack on it with jumps everywhere. We also built a treehouse in one of its trees. Then one day the owner decided to build a house on it. The construction equipment came in and started digging up our racetrack. We all complained and whined to our parents who told us that the property owner could build a house on his property if he wanted. We were not paying for anything and had no rights at all with respect to the property.
The new model isn't just a revised interface, it is also a new monetization model, and presumably the decision to throw out all the original free content, by shutting the platform, is motivated by greedy commercialism.
You fucking stooge! Slashdot should be ashamed of itself for taking part in this false flag operation. Clearly the decision to monetize content is motivated by Satanic vampirism! Death to these unholy monsters and anyone who supports them!
Breakfast served all day!
Business is way more complex than that. Human group behavior often appears as something simple, especially when it isn't. In business, this often produces an effect whereby everyone in a business has honest, benevolent intentions, and manages to build a shambling, evil empire; actual malicious intent and selfish greed are rare events, but common outcomes.
Coursera has, for a long time, been molding itself into a corporate service platform. In reorganization, aligning the business with its strategic goals would rightly include removing out-of-scope practices such as providing open, free online courses. The major failure in that model is in evaluating those practices in the context of their *impact* on the business, rather than on the business strategy: not thinking about how the world interacts with you or how your actions will be seen by the world leads to taking actions that upset the population.
There's a lot of middle-class radicalization and social justice warrior stuff going on in this summary. There's even a direct attack on colleges and professors ("Let's teach a course because it's good for my ego"--teachers are all selfish assholes, right?), as if the entire practice of teaching is a pox on society, while the practice of learning is something cherished and valuable.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Thank you Bill Shatner!
All it takes is time and money. Is submitter willing to step up? Because apparently Coursera isn't.
Being in the middle of taking a Coursera course right now I can state that the content is still free if you audit the course. Auditing a course gives you access to the lectures, coursework, and the forums. You cannot submit coursework for a grade, nor receive a final grade and certificate (if you pass) unless you have paid for the course.
Having taken several of the original free courses I was concerned at first but once I read through all the fine print I think it's a fine way to monetize the system. Free for those that want information and a charge for those that want proof of having taken the course.
You can download the free Coursera courses and host them yourself. You can probably upload them to YouTube as well if the copyright permits it.
The idea that Coursera has been an "enthusiastic pioneer" also strikes me as silly. MIT OpenCourseWare started in 2001 and Khan Academy in 2006, and even those were far from the first efforts. There have been tons of lectures on iTunes as well. Coursera has been a relatively late effort by Stanford to get into the game using its Silicon Valley connections. Good for them that they succeeded, but they are not "pioneers".
Petterline? More like Palpatine, AMIRITE?
It's understandable that Coursera would eventually decide hosting this content for free wasn't sustainable, however I'm sure there are many individuals who would be happy to archive anything of value and continue providing it for free (aka through your preferred torrent service).
Who's going to pay for the massive bandwidth bills for hosting thousands of videos? Coursera should at least upload videos to youtube playlists or similar before shutting access to them.
Won't this content be preserved in the way back machine?
There's a lot of middle-class radicalization and social justice warrior stuff going on in this summary.
Indeed. Coursera is a for-profit company, so no one should be surprised that they engage in "greedy commercialism". That is what enables them to grow as a business and pay people salaries. They are not a charity, and should not be expected to behave as one. MOOCs are far from dead, and much of this same content can be accessed on Youtube, along with hundreds of other courses.
Disclaimer: I have competed several MOOCs, mostly free courses from MIT. I have never taken a course from Coursera.
You make it sound as if this is somehow a feature of big, complex organizations. But good intentions frequently yield disastrous outcomes even at the individual level. Ultimately, it isn't people's intentions that matter, it's actual outcomes.
As for Coursera, their "good intentions" may simply be running into financial reality: the MOOC space is crowded, there is a lot of good free content, and big name universities are not necessarily at an advantage here. Good intentions don't come to fruition if the people with the good intentions can't figure out how to pay for them.
The phrase "cultural vandalism" sounds like some BS that SJWs would come up with. Tumblr must be leaking again.
It's the most replaceable content there is, why else do universities come up with new editions of the same decades-old shit?
Raise some money and buy a redistributable license to the content. Alternatively, purchase or take over the company.
More generally, I must call out what appears as a contradiction: (1) this content is extremely valuable, (2) I'm not willing to pay anything for it (it should be zero-dollars-free).
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
As it turns out, what some people considered a platform is actually a corporation's private website. I hope they'll learn from their mistakes and post their course content on their own website next time.
It's not good intentions per se. The mode of thinking as a group and, really, in any context differs from the mode of thinking in any other context. Look at the UBI crowd (or any politicians), the Computer Science Primary Education crowd (or any educators), or any other group of people with a common ideal between them. The way an unaffiliated individual evaluates an ideal is *different* from the way the group evaluates it. Goals narrow and secondary impacts become invisible. Bad logic comes into play.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
.. is that you tend to lose interest after a few lectures. Subconsciously it doesn't hold much value in your mind because it is free.
It is likely that Coursera discovered this fact. That is why they started charging for all courses.
The charges are minimal. I took Prof Ng's Machine Learning course for only 30 bucks and once I paid the money, I got motivated to finish all lectures and exercises in time.
They need much better content if they expect people to pay. I'm certainly not going to pay just to watch a couple dozen videos.
captcha: tacitly
This story should be flagged as "opinion", I think.
Coursera, Khan, Lynda, all just marketing platforms, hoovering up personal details for sale, while offering some half-assed, half-baked "course" designed mostly to make people feel better about themselves.
Bye!
I'm going to go out on limb here and suggest that it might have less to do with greed and more to do with the fact that infrastructure and people cost money. As much as I would like it if everything in life were free, it isn't, which means that the people that build and maintain their infrastructure need a salary (not to mention what I imagine are non-trivial hosting costs), and that money has to come from somewhere.
"Human group behavior often appears as something simple, especially when it isn't"...
But "middle class radicalization and social justice warrior stuff" reduction is somehow a valid conclusion to jump to? I bet the bathroom smells like cinnamon rolls after you take a shit too hu?
It does - but only because that's where I keep all my cinnamon rolls.
As someone who works at an educational institution that creates MOOCs on Coursera, I can tell you that any courses that disappear after June 30th will have done so because the CONTENT CREATOR (the universities, professors, etc.) decided to not migrate them to the new platform. The migration is not a terribly difficult chore, so you can blame the content creators for deciding to not migrate... and maybe they did so because THEY, not Coursera, were tired of giving content away for free.
And anybody who thinks this is the end of free MOOCs hasn't clicked the "Enroll" button for any courses on the new platform. I just went to a random one and am presented with "Purchase Course - $49; Commit to earning a Certificate-it's a trusted, shareable way to showcase your new skills." OR "Full Course, No Certificate; You will still have access to all course materials for this course."
Different: Yes. No Longer Free: No.
N/t
Who's going to pay for the massive bandwidth bills for hosting thousands of videos?
The Internet Archive. They want to host video collections such as those Coursera is dumping. They already have far more than you're likely aware--their ~25 petabytes of data contain quite a few videos. Their data centers have excellent network connections.
How do they get their funding? A mix of paid services (libraries, museums, etc. hire them to professionally digitize and archive their collections), donations, and some government grants (from across the world) mixed in. They're a small operation with not a lot of overhead so your contributions would go a long way. With more money they could have more data centers for redundancy and better distribute their network loads. I encourage you to check them out, they're cool guys with a great mission. While YouTube is a potential solution and far better than nothing, I trust archive.org more since their whole mission is to preserve knowledge and culture and they actively fight against censorship.
Why must all references of efforts to earn a living be described as "greedy"? I survive neither by charity from other nor inherited wealth but provide useful goods and services to others. Does that make me greedy? Does that make a group of individuals who do the same, say a corporation automatically greedy?
The point of using tech (digital transmission) to provide education and why its valuable is because digital works can be copied and viewed infinitely so long as they are distributed. They just need a server if the places (universities, etc.) making the courses allow it recording and distribution of it, which they had gratis previously. Its unclear what the new business model is (how much $$$, etc.) but if its more than the server cost + cost to give new universities incentive to sign up, then it is cultural vandalism or something similar.
They do all the effort to make a Chrome plugin and a Python script, but why don't they just download it and put in a .torrent. That will make it easy accessible to anyone and available till eternity.
You cannot trust an entity to keep your data online for (what appears to be) free interminably. In the US, the web is not a public resource (tax supported, then free downstream for all.) It is a commercial resource, where presence requires upstream expenditure.
That means someone, or someone(s), somewhere, has to support the model with actual money. When the reasons to support that model go away -- and there are many ways that can happen -- so will the data.
You want your data to remain available? Keep a copy of it yourself and make it available. This, if nothing else, gives you control over whether it it available, or not. You can, of course, put it up somewhere like Coursera or GitHub or YouTube or Wikipedia or one of these so-called "cloud" services if you are so inclined, but rest assured, these large entities are burning through money at a fairly good clip, and that means all data (and service) you offer in such a way depends on that for-money model at one level or another.
The thing is, it's their for-money model, not yours. So your control is almost always nil. When you, on the other hand, set up a cheap little website to offer your "stuff", then the expenditure is yours, and so is the control. That's the basis for a good relationship between you, and the people you want to be able to access your data.
You have a network connection. If you have unlimited data (and if not, why not?) ask your ISP for a static IP, set up an easy to use LAMP stack, and have at it. If you do have limited data... first, try to change ISPs, because really... that's terrible. If that doesn't work, there are all manner of services out there where you can set up shop on the cheap, and if they go away, you can just move.
And... if you're not motivated enough to do that... well, there you go. Nowhere, that is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That's about it in the subject line.
Commoditizing information is probably one of the larger mistakes our civilization makes. Think of the progress that could be made if information was freely shared and available. Certain parallels to Open Source could be made as well, and I'm surprised no one here in the higher-modded comments haven't bothered to make the association.
It saddens me that people have to pay for knowledge, and I think it is an absolutely backwards system to do so.
Outside of the fact that the some old courses may go away, am I the only one who thinks that their new platform, which prettier, is actually less usable than the original one?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
The FOSS community has had this problem solved for decades:
Fork it!
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Coursera offers free course product online to consumers for many years. Coursera decides to no longer offer the free courses many years later. Users, having had free (i.e., unpaid) access to the courses for many years, courtesy of Coursera, become extremely upset when no longer given free stuff by Coursera.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Instead of discussing the philosophy behind this matter can we do something about it?
While not all the Coursera courses are worth saving, we won't know who needs what in the future.
I have nieces (in third world countries) who have benefited a lot from free Coursera courses to complement the poor quality teachers they got in their high schools.
Can we start a coordinated downloading campaign on as many Coursera courses as possible, first into our own private cloud servers, which later we can compiled together in a centralized location, for use of anyone anywhere.
Regarding online courses I myself had met with disappointment before.
I came across excellent reviews on a particular online course which was offered by Harvard, but when I tried to take the course I found out that all the course material for that particular course had been deleted.
I am sure I am not the only one having this type of experience, and for the Coursera material we should at least try our best to not let the same thing happen to other people in the future.
Can we start something, ShanghaiBill?
Watching video's takes too much time anyways.
There are fewer better candidates for committal to the InterPlanertary File System than these free educational courses! Let's get on it!
Business is way more complex than that. Human group behavior often appears as something simple, especially when it isn't. In business, this often produces an effect whereby everyone in a business has honest, benevolent intentions, and manages to build a shambling, evil empire; actual malicious intent and selfish greed are rare events, but common outcomes.
Coursera has, for a long time, been molding itself into a corporate service platform. In reorganization, aligning the business with its strategic goals would rightly include removing out-of-scope practices such as providing open, free online courses. The major failure in that model is in evaluating those practices in the context of their *impact* on the business, rather than on the business strategy: not thinking about how the world interacts with you or how your actions will be seen by the world leads to taking actions that upset the population.
There's a lot of middle-class radicalization and social justice warrior stuff going on in this summary. There's even a direct attack on colleges and professors ("Let's teach a course because it's good for my ego"--teachers are all selfish assholes, right?), as if the entire practice of teaching is a pox on society, while the practice of learning is something cherished and valuable.
That's a pretty warped conclusion to reach from the text of the summary. They pretty obviously were making a comparison between classes of teachers, but you want to say they're talking about not just all teachers, but the practice of teaching itself.
If you ever get frustrated as to why so many people fall for SJW B.S., well, good luck with that. Try opening your eyes, son.
Is this a legitimate use of Torrent technology? Hosting a simple site with torrent links is cheap, but illegal if the material's copyrights disallow it. But it's open material?
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.