There's been a discussion about quality of open education resources - Tony Bates, Terry Anderson, Rory McGreal and others. Rory McGreal points out that OER do not have to be perfect in order to be useful. I'm struck with that idea. I was on a committee for a first year composition program and every semester there was a discussion of "textook." Not even most expensive, traditionally published textbook was considered perfect by all instructors. The committee was constantly on the look-out for a better textbook - or looking for a means to produce their own set of readings. What's "perfection"? Why not start with OER or create OER and refine the material as needed? Terry Anderson makes that point in a discussion of "produsage" - Axle Bruns' term used to describe materials that are produced by the people who use them. Isn't that the point of OER - take what you can use and re-write or produce what you need?
Some recent discussions:
Tony Bates: OERs: the good, the bad and the ugly
Tony Bates: A defence of the OER movement: Any which way you can
Terry Anderson: Quality of Open Educational Resources
David Wiley: The General Confusion around "Open"
Wayne Macintosh pointed to Sir John Daniel's "Will Higher Education Split?"