Hi Mathieu,
I seemed to miss the proposal for proposing new SC members. Can
you point me to the email again?
Thanks!
Gabriella
Mathieu O'Neil wrote:
[Converted from text/html]
HI Athina, Stephan, all
I dont think just because one person has their mind set on something
constitutes a sufficient reason to do it, whoever that person
may be.
I think its important to keep in mind what people want. A
number of
people have expressed serious reservations about rating
indiscriminately. At the same time StefanMn has argued for ratings:
but why? If I remember correctly it was mainly to allow papers that
were either a) "controversial" (ie political, radical) or b) written
by non-English speakers, to be published.
My suggestion is to compromise: normally published papers are not
rated. They are produced along the lines I suggested in my post
called>"Alternative peer review system", inspired by Toni Prug's
piece. But
when authors or reviewers feel that the paper are concerned by either
of the categories mentioned above, then authors can ask for and
reviewers can suggest that they are rathed in these categories. That
way papers which would either not be published or take endless
negotiation or fixing up to be published can be.
I agree with Athina that the debate needs to be wrapped up otherwise
energy will continue to drain out of the project.
The same goes with how to define who can be part of the SC. I have
made a proposal that seemed to me fair and clear a number of times,
I'm not going to repeat it again. Well some new people have been
suggested but I didnt want to contact anyone until there was
consensus...................???
cheers
Mathieu
On 12/12/09, Athina Karatzogianni <athina.k gmail.com> wrote:
[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/>
> > 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
--
****
Dr Mathieu O'Neil
Adjunct Research Fellow
Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute
College of Arts and Social Science
The Australian National University
email: mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal
--
****************************************************
Gabriella Coleman, Assistant Professor
Department of Media, Culture, & Communication
New York University
239 Greene St, 7th floor
NY NY 10003
212-992-7696
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/view/Gabriella_Coleman
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal