The Institute for the Future of the Book posted an announcement of the MediaCommons project today. It's worth taking a look at, as it represents a number of the movements underway regarding online scholarship and publication. I'll highlight two points for now. One:

Moreover, publishing within such a network seems increasingly crucial to media scholars, who need the ability to quote from the multi-mediated materials they write about, and for whom form needs to be able to follow content, allowing not just for writing about mediation but writing in a mediated environment.

I agree wholeheartedly. At the same time, I don't like the claim that media studies people are either best suited or more appropriate for this task. First, my gut sense is that often media practitioners are not the ones writing the books about media studies. Second, and more important, if this gesture matters, then it matters for all writers, especially those not already layering and key-framing in the choir.

Point two:

The move from the discrete, proprietary, market-driven press to an open access scholarly network became in our conversations both a logical way of meeting the multiple mandates that academics operate within and a necessary intervention for the academy, allowing it to forge a more inclusive community of scholars who challenge opaque forms of traditional scholarship by foregrounding process and emphasizing critical dialogue. Such dialogue will foster new scholarship that operates in modes that are collaborative, interactive, multimediated, networked, nonlinear, and multi-accented. In the process, an open access scholarly network will also build bridges with diverse non-academic communities, allowing the academy to regain its credibility with these constituencies who have come to equate scholarly critical discourse with ivory tower elitism.

Again, yes. I'm behind the move. I worry, though, about regaining credibility with these constituents if the nature of the scholarly discourse remains more or less unchanged. I guess my questions boil down to will a venue shift be enough? Or, will it be a drastic enough venue shift? Or, is the nature of the academic mind such that it is likely to alienate a general public in any venue?

I don't want to come of as hyper-critical. I'm eager to see this play out. There is also a pedagogical dimension that is really worth a look. I'm excited about such moves and want to plug them.