Re: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
- From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:16:25 +1100
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
[Brian Whitworth's response was killed by the spam filter, I think because he sent it from an unregistered address, "taboo header"? - reposting below, M]
[BW sez:]
Yes, actual control is only needed for heedless donkeys, and even they
get warning signals before. This is how the world works. If I look back
at seriously bad things that happened to me, I see that the world
actually gave me several warnings not to do that (which I ignored). So
in an adult setting everything should be signals, from people and from
the community. Only if community signals fail does"security" need to be
called. In scientific knowledge exchange, honest feedback from others is
critical to growth. If it is done democratically and transparently, the
result will be better than letting an elite few control what is "good",
which can begin well but always soon decays. One has to trust that
people will be both honest and kind in their contributions, but there is
no escaping evaluation. No community can afford to give its citizens a
free lunch, because it doesnt itself get one from the physical world
around it. How a community rates a product, by "expert" reviewer
representatives or by "market" general vote, is absolute. If it always
gets it wrong, it will fail regardless. The important thing is that
everyone is free to contribute, so a community acts how it really is.
Power "warps" a community. Communities should always give choice to
their members because the world always gives choice to us. Giving and
receiving signals is critical to making right choices.
all the best in this endeavor
Brian
[Uh, he seems to be saying that signals are good, which most agree on, but as to the question of whether having unsignaled papers will muck up the system, we have to read between the lines... anyone feel like tea-gazing? ;-)]
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil anu.edu.au>
Date: Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:41 am
Subject: [jox] Signals _and_ Accept/Reject
To: journal oekonux.org
Cc: journal oekonux.org
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Hi George, all
The hermit awakes! Will sparks fly as they did a year ago? ;-)
@ Brian Whitworth: Brian, what do you think about the below
idea: allowing people to choose between signals (used to be
'ratings') and plain accepted/rejected articles? Would this
introduces a dissonance in the system and an unwanted division
in the articles? Or would it be OK, in your view?
Thanks for advising,
cheers
Mathieu
2. Regarding the *submission process*: although this might
complicate> things a bit in the beginning (for both editorial
team and potential
contributing authors), i agree with the idea of letting submitting
authors decide whether they prefer their submissions to be evaluated
according to the accept/reject model or based on 'signals'.
X,
g.
______________________________
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[at]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
[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[at]anu.edu.au
web: http://adsri.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/mathieu.php
[2 text/html]
______________________________
http://www.oekonux.org/journal