Message 00026 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 163/176 L13 [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]

Re: [jox] Mission statement (was: Request for comments)

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
This should be an acceptable position for our journal ... as long as it is
well written and researched paper, it should not be a problem ...

That doesn't mean we should go into endless tit for tat ...

It's a question of balance, for every critical piece uncovering the workings
inside capitalism, we'll have pieces on the construction of alternatives


On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM, graham <graham> wrote:

Mathieu O'Neil wrote:

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
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.

(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).


ps. Michel, you did not indicate whether you wanted to be a reviewer...


Working at - -

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:  - -

Monitor updates at

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 163/176 L13 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00026 [Homepage] [Navigation]