an open-access dilemma.

I've been reading about Galileo and his contributions to not only science as we know it, but also how information is valued and shared.  Dr. Burton's article entitled Galileo opened the heavens with Open Access was very informative.  In it, he argues that one of Galileo's greatest contributions, if not his greatest contribution, was his method of freely sharing his findings.  The article makes a strong case for internet openness:

By limiting the speed and spread of knowledge made possible online (for the righteous cause of review), they merely update Galileo's house arrest.

I completely agree.  If everyone who ever discovered something great just kept it to himself/herself, would we be living in the same kind of world?  Absolutely not.  How glad I am that some of the world's most brilliant people weren't selfish with their ideas!

The other side of the coin is this: What happens when people are too generous?  What happens when everyone shares information without some way of ranking that information?  We would have to wade through a sea of faulty information just to arrive at something reliable.  The idea of "everything open" definitely favors both those who consume and those who create, but if too many create, how will we know what to consume?  Although publishing companies and the like are made to be "the bad guys," if it weren't for them, how would I know if I'm receiving quality stuff?  How would I know where to go to find information worth consuming?