Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi
Regarding an opinion opposed to the editorial line - there is
no line so far. Like StefanMn said, if someone advocated a POV
that was fundamentally opposed to peer production that might be
problematic but I think that is unlikely to happen.
I would guess that it's actually extremely likely to happen:
there is a well-established position which holds that peer-
production is a con designed to extract free labour in support
of capitalism, and that modern capitalism actually depends on
this free labour. It's hard to say what to do about this: the
idea is obviously on-topic, but equally obviously in the context
a trolling technique which can potentially bog the journal down
in endless for- and against- arguments. Especially as the
argument can be associated with theses I feel are proto-fascist
(I wrote 'I' because I know not everyone does, but I also know
I'm not the only one to feel like this).
There were a couple of cases of this already on the list; I feel
we (including me) didn't deal with them well, but don't know how
they could have been dealt with better - both cases generated
lengthy flames. Maybe collect such articles and reserve them for
one particular edition.
Cheers
Graham
(who has been off dealing with family problems but will try to
be a bit more present again)
In any case to safeguard the pluralism of views I think dialogue
and a case-by-case approach would work best (if someone makes a
well-structured argument that someone else on the team disagrees
with they can always write a rebuttal).
cheers
Mathieu
ps. Michel, you did not indicate whether you wanted to be a
reviewer...>
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal