and staff members are employed to do tedious administrative and editorial work. Universitiesdo not employ all of them; their journal publishers do. His hope that cooperatives betweenuniversities and professional associations will sustain open access journals is admirable. Thisis happening in a small number of places. Someone still needs to pay the staff. Or, labor canbe unpaid. Do not pay the intern, graduate student or junior faculty member doing tediousadministrative and editorial work like line editing, formatting, style and fact checking, soliciting,tracking and scheduling manuscripts, managing the budget or other editorial and productionlabor. They are in it for the glory, ay? Yet the glory accrues to the institution and only to thetenured faculty. In many public colleges and institutions the number of tenured faculty is limited,even in decline. The academy is under no pressure to increase the number of permanenttenured faculty or staff. Adjuncts and interns rush to find ways to eat for a few dollars, or compete to distinguish their CV from the mass pile. Is Willinsky pro-slavery in the alreadyexploited lower end of the academy? The journal staff deserves to be paid living wages. Theyalready work under super-exploitation for half the salaries of the academic writers and thebusiness managers who employ them. The assumption that everyone who produces getstenure or a full time permanent job is simply not true.Sources of first hand reporting about contemporary issues do not appear in university studiesuntil a decade after they first appear in the press. Internet website articles are rarely as detailedor critical as full length feature reporting from a seasoned investigative reporter, who needs toeat and deserves to get paid. Yes, the labor necessary to produce culture is valuable. Value isnot automatically redistributed to the underpaid or unpaid denizens who produce it in its origins.Open access cooperatives work best with scholarly and scientific research that originates ininstitutions that pay administrators first, then tenured faculty, and the rest as little as possible.Willinsky slips out of his philosopher¶s logic when he addresses the Bush administration¶spolicies on education. I did not like the Bush administration, but the author¶s tone soundspersonal, almost unprofessional. I am afraid that open access and Internet based publicationswill have less editorial control. Will ³open´ become more personal, perhaps to the point of violating the rules of argument? We still need standards for format, style, grammar, argumentand validity based on repeated testing of ideas and research data. The New England Journal of Medicine embodies good standards for all of these points, but there are countless open sourcesites on the net that may not. We still need to establish authority for publications. I do not wantthat ³authority´ to be trapped entirely in either academic or commercial formats. They balanceone another.In ³What is a document?´ (JASIS 1997), Michael Buckland recalled the phenomenologicalposition: ³The object is perceived to be a document.´ Willinsky challenges thephenomenological stasis of academic publishing, where the article is not really considered avaluable publication unless it is published in an exclusive, expensive journal with a printmedium. Willinsky successfully argues that the article is really a ³valuable article´ if people inopen access common space find it to be useful or interesting, because they refer to the articleand refer others to its publication site. The locus of perceived value and prestige has to shiftfrom the vanity of high end, expensive and exclusive sources to the success of research andideas in the greater intellectual commons supported by the Internet. This is a phenomenologicalshift with consequences for semantic definitions of standards, management and bibliographiccontrol. Will the new source of value be utility, how often an article is accessed or used? Willthis favor easy reading? Is the market or the mass public the best judge of value in specializedresearch?