Message 00027 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00000 Message: 164/176 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]
Hi Graham

Well, that was actually one of the critical / self-reflexive points I made in my initial RFC... peer production as an ideology within capitalism. I think it's a valid point or at least one that needs to be explored and dealt with... if the exact same argument keeps coming up that's a different issue.


----- Original Message -----
From: graham <graham>
Date: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:52 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Mission statement (was: Request for comments)
To: journal

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 

Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University

E-mail: mathieu.oneil
Tel.: (61 02) 61 25 38 00
Mail: Coombs Building, 9
Canberra, ACT 0200 - AUSTRALIA

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00000 Message: 164/176 L13 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00027 [Homepage] [Navigation]