Re: [jox] Suggested Site Structure
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:24:09 +0200
Hi Mathieu and all!
2 weeks (16 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Speaking of which I posted a suggested site structure a week ago - no-one commented! Must mean it was perfect!... ;-) Is there a way to start setting up pages using the layout I suggested - all white background, text only, small font, frontpage with cspp and five subcategories?
Sure. As I saw you already started this.
BTW: You may want to have a look at http://conference.oekonux.org/. I
set this up now and also tweaked the layout a bit.
2 weeks (15 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
critical studies in peer production
call research opinion
I understand that this list should be the navigation bar at the
Actually, I was thinking of having this more in the middle of the page - more striking that way.
Ah - ok. Of course possible. Nonetheless we need to decide whether we
want to have the navigation bar at the top and if so what content it
Any content for the front page? I'd suggest the mission statement
until we have something suitable for this.
My idea was to not have any other content - I guess we could have a very short para. I just envisioned something very clean and simple. Lots of white space. Can we lose the columns to the side, if only for the front page?
AFAICS it is possible to switch the left and right column off for a
given page (i.e. remove all portlets from this page).
=political theory stream
==[pt001] <Merten & Meretz, Germ Form Theory> [under review]
That would mean that you are introducing a topic based folder system
at this level. Can be done but technically it could be done by the
category system I mentioned a while ago.
As topics I'd use the list we have defined in the mission statement:
the political economy of peer production; peer production and
expertise; critical theory and peer production; peer
exchange; peer production and social movements; peer
an alternative to capitalism; peer production and capitalist
cooptation; governance in peer projects; peer production
the peer production of hardware; peer production and
production, industry and ecology.
Probably without the "peer production" phrase.
Good idea, but this is a bit too detailed as a lot of papers would very conceivably fit into more than one category.
I don't think this would be a real problem but it is certainly
So it would need to be simplified a bit. Also we did mention having a WP stream a while back..
Well, here we are dealing with categories vs. hierarchy. Some content
can be in several categories but it can be only in once location in
However, this restriction is lifted by the collections I talked about
a while ago and which I introduced. This way you can tag some content
with as much categories as you like and it automatically appears in
all collections selecting a matching category.
@Mathieu: As I have the impression that some of my explanations are
not understood: Do you think you understand what I'm talking about?
[opinion page: list leads to subpages for papers]
critical studies in peer production: opinion
These shorter papers aim to stimulate debate by confronting
ideas and perspectives.
Does an opinion section really make sense for CSPP? I thought we are
doing something close to a research journal and mere opinions
not suited well for this. Also there are a couple of options where
such opinions can be posted - preferably on the `Oekonux list`_ of
course - and make far more sense.
I strongly disagree with this. It will take a long time before we develop the intellectual weight to have lots of fantastic research papers all the time.
Please define "all the time".
Unless all the members of the SC "do the right thing" and submit a top paper, in terms of reputation, there is not much to gain for an academic researcher in submitting to us - we are new and have not much to show. You may not like it but that is the reality of research publishing today.
So it makes sense to diversify a bit and have more political / opinionated pieces as well. As current editor, I would not want to publish anything that was poorly written or (hopefully) uninteresting.
Such as opinions...
And as a participant, I have zero interest in taking part in yet another identikit academic journal. I would like this project to be alive, and the best way to do that is have strong dialogues and exchanges between people.
In other words: You are trying to set up yet another discussion
community where from the top of my head we have at least three similar
ones already up and running: Oekonux, Keimform, P2P. Sounds like the
world is really needing this...
Well, at least I now know what I did put my energy in so far...