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]

Re: [jox] Multi-rating mode of evaluation

[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 at


http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2609/2248

opposes that control mentality to introduce the ideal of democracy
in academic publishing, i.e. government by the people for the people


Well, 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]