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.

9 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Cultral Vandalism? by bhcompy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As I stated in this post, people feel they are entitled to something someone else produced. It doesn't matter that the person or company has taken the time and effort to produce something other people want, everyone else demands it as an inherent right to have it instantly completely ignoring the fact they haven't lifted a finger to produce the product.

      As I have always said, if people believe things should be free they can produce what they want and give it away. They shouldn't expect everyone else to do the same.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by mspohr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe that was the point.
      People created content for Coursera with the intention of giving it away for free. Coursera appropriated that content and is denying access to it so that it can sell it's other paid content.
      So, it's not a question of "people wanting something for free" but "people being denied access to something they were given".

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    3. Re:Cultral Vandalism? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coursera appropriated that content and is denying access to it

      Hogwash. Coursera didn't "appropriate" anything. They just made it available, for free. Then they stopped.

      Agreed. No company or internet service who hosted something for FREE has an obligation to keep hosting said content for FREE forever. They're not "denying access" to content; they're just not going to host it anymore.

      If the original creator failed to keep a backup, that is not Coursera's fault.

      It surprises me that people haven't figured this out about the internet yet. I realized it 20 years ago.

      Two rules that constitute the grand oxymoron of internet content durability:

      (1) Once you put something on the internet, it may be on the internet FOREVER. (Corollary: Be careful what you post; it could follow you for the rest of your life.)

      (2) Anything that's on the internet could disappear FOREVER at any time. (Corollary: If you actually want to preserve something, you need to download it and be responsible for preserving it yourself.)

      Unfortunately, many people haven't caught on to this. A century from now historians will be looking back in puzzlement at the "Dark Decades" between the end of paper records and the beginning of more permanent digital archives, where huge amounts of electronic content was created but then lost forever. Meanwhile, I'm sure most of the meaningless Tweets and Facebook posts of drunken party photos will still be around for historians to assess....

  2. Summary is a bit over the top by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Nothing is destroyed. by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:they want the student loan cash cow by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Free content by corporate+zombie · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Vacant lot analogy by epseps · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you are correct.

    Also it seems a lot of other websites focusing on online courses used the coursera APIs, https://building.coursera.org/... , including https://www.class-central.com/ .

    So it is more than just playing in the vacant lot, I think some sites were making some cash from their online courses via the API and now their business model is getting flushed.