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
....

Michel

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

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




-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/


[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal



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