Message 00206 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 126/176 L40 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
[Converted from multipart/alternative] [1 text/plain] Hi Stefan I think you have your mind set on this, and so you should just go ahead and experiment with your rating system and she where it gets us. You want to try this out, so just do it!! Just to say though that your comment: 'Yes. And this is more like classical democracy then. But the readers can only give their opinion on pre-selected items' to me is very problematic, from the "classical democracy" perspective you are referring to. So yes, I dont mean to be difficult, but I do not think continuing this debate will have any more fruition and is just delaying the project. At the same time we are getting into a debate that is better left inside the journal's future content pages and not theoretically debated in pre-organizational terms and times I need some coffee desperately Thanks Athina On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de> wrote:
Hi Brian and all! I'd like to reply to this from the perspective of peer production. Last week (7 days ago) bwhitworth wrote:Statements like "We should publish only papers that we agree are fit for publication" or "We should ..." in general assume that we control the journal. Our paper athttp://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2609/2248opposes that control mentality to introduce the ideal of democracy in academic publishing, i.e. government by the people for the peopleWell, I'd say yes for the openness and transparency but no for those who make the choice - at least for a journal like this. Peer production projects are not democratic but have maintainers (aka leaders) who are listened to by volunteers. The maintainers are maintainers not by any alienated facility but because their work is useful for the project at hand. This is how I see it for a journal like this as well. People *do* subscribe to such a journal *because* they trust the responsible persons to make a good choice for them because they don't have the time / knowledge / ... for this work. Just like people *do* choose Ubuntu *because* they trust the Ubuntu maintainers to do a good job.Likewise the ratings of registered readers, while informal, are not unexpected nor imposed. The public is always entitled to its opinion. The system need only identify and ban spammes and trolls, as Wikipedia does. The view of the public should not be a secret, so people can rate what they read.Yes. And this is more like classical democracy then. But the readers can only give their opinion on pre-selected items. As I argued the pre-selection is exactly the task of the persons responsible for the journal. Grüße Stefan ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
-- Dr Athina Karatzogianni Lecturer in Media, Culture and Society The Dean's Representative (Chinese Partnerships) Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The University of Hull United Kingdom HU6 7RX T: ++44 (0) 1482 46 5790 F: ++44 (0) 1482 466107 http://www2.hull.ac.uk/FASS/humanities/media,_culture_and_society/staff/karatzogianni,_dr_athina.aspx Check out Athina's work http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ath=A+Karatzogianni Check Virtual Communication Collaboration and Conflict (Virt3C) Conference Call http://virt3c.wordpress.com/ [2 text/html] ______________________________ http://www.oekonux.org/journal
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 126/176 L40 | [In date index] | [In thread index] | |
---|---|---|---|
Message 00206 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |