Message 00375 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00328 Message: 10/24 L9 [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] Suggested Site Structure

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan, all

I have been thinking for some time that not everyone on this list is interested in reading the details of how we set up the website. The spirit of openness needs to be balanced against the spirit of not overloading people with information they are not that interested in, inasmuch as the people on the list are mainly interested in the content of the site / journal and not the technical details of site configuration. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't want people to start deleting list messages if they assume it will be a couple people discussing technical tweaks. What does everyone think? We could post regular updates or something.

So I will refrain from responding specifically on those issues until that is decided (I will say that I realise I need to put in some more work in getting up to speed on Plone - I've started but found it a bit limited in terms of layout. This will probably mean me asking some questions as I may indeed not understand everything :-( or cant find the answer. I know we are supposed to be a distributed intelligence over here but so far only one person, StefanMn, has really been working on site layout... Not talking about content management, review system, in general as some people may have thoughts about that. I have been looking at some nice journals like and but for me I would prefer something a bit more minimal and stark - we will get there eventually).

Regarding Stefan's final point below there is no intention in having unstructured debates in the opinion section but simply these contributions would be 5 pages rather than 25 and most importantly operate as responses to other well-articulated positions or polemics rather than stand-alone papers. So really a lot more structured than the give and take of an email list where some contributions could be a few lines. Hope this explains a bit better the intention here...
@ Johan and Nate: I am sitting on your papers for now as I would like to respond or at least post some avenues of response to the list to see if anyone else is interested in working on a common response. Nate, your final iteration is fine, apart from a couple extremely minor stylistic points which I will send off soon.



----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Merten <smerten>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: [jox] Suggested Site Structure
To: journal

Hi Mathieu and all!

2 weeks (16 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Speaking of which I posted a suggested site structure a week 
ago - no-one commented! Must mean it was perfect!... ;-) Is 
there a way to start setting up pages using the layout I 
suggested - all white background, text only, small font, 
frontpage with cspp and five subcategories?

Sure. As I saw you already started this.

BTW: You may want to have a look at I
set this up now and also tweaked the layout a bit.

2 weeks (15 days) ago Mathieu ONeil wrote:

[front page]

critical studies in peer production

call  research  opinion   
reports   journal

I understand that this list should be the navigation bar at 
top -

Actually, I was thinking of having this more in the middle of 
the page - more striking that way. 

Ah - ok. Of course possible. Nonetheless we need to decide 
whether we
want to have the navigation bar at the top and if so what 
content it
should have.

Any content for the front page? I'd suggest the mission statement
until we have something suitable for this.

My idea was to not have any other content - I guess we could 
have a very short para. I just envisioned something very clean 
and simple. Lots of white space. Can we lose the columns to the 
side, if only for the front page?

AFAICS it is possible to switch the left and right column off 
for a
given page (i.e. remove all portlets from this page).

=wikipedia stream
==[wp001] <title>
==[wp002] <title>

=political theory stream
==[pt001] <Merten & Meretz, Germ Form Theory> [under review]
==[pt001] <title>

=governance stream

That would mean that you are introducing a topic based folder 
system>> at this level. Can be done but technically it could be 
done by the
category system I mentioned a while ago.

As topics I'd use the list we have defined in the mission 
  the political economy of peer production; peer 
production and
  expertise; critical theory and peer production; 
production and
  exchange; peer production and social movements; 
production as
  an alternative to capitalism; peer production and 
capitalist>>   cooptation; governance in peer 
projects; peer production 
and ethics;
  the peer production of hardware; peer production 
feminism; peer
  production, industry and ecology.

Probably without the "peer production" phrase.

Good idea, but this is a bit too detailed as a lot of papers 
would very conceivably fit into more than one category.

I don't think this would be a real problem but it is certainly

So it would need to be simplified a bit. Also we did mention 
having a WP stream a while back..

Well, here we are dealing with categories vs. hierarchy. Some content
can be in several categories but it can be only in once location in
the hierarchy.

However, this restriction is lifted by the collections I talked about
a while ago and which I introduced. This way you can tag some content
with as much categories as you like and it automatically appears in
all collections selecting a matching category.

@Mathieu: As I have the impression that some of my explanations are
not understood: Do you think you understand what I'm talking about?


[opinion page: list leads to subpages for papers]

critical studies in peer production: opinion 

These shorter papers aim to stimulate debate by confronting 
ideas and perspectives.

Does an opinion section really make sense for CSPP? I thought 
we are
doing something close to a research journal and mere opinions 
IMHO are
not suited well for this. Also there are a couple of options where
such opinions can be posted - preferably on the `Oekonux 
list`_ of
course - and make far more sense.

I strongly disagree with this. It will take a long time before 
we develop the intellectual weight to have lots of fantastic 
research papers all the time.

Please define "all the time".

Unless all the members of the SC "do the right thing" and 
submit a top paper, in terms of reputation, there is not much to 
gain for an academic researcher in submitting to us - we are new 
and have not much to show. You may not like it but that is the 
reality of research publishing today.

So it makes sense to diversify a bit and have more political / 
opinionated pieces as well. As current editor, I would not want 
to publish anything that was poorly written or (hopefully) 
Such as opinions...

And as a participant, I have zero interest in taking part in 
yet another identikit academic journal. I would like this 
project to be alive, and the best way to do that is have strong 
dialogues and exchanges between people. 

In other words: You are trying to set up yet another discussion
community where from the top of my head we have at least three similar
ones already up and running: Oekonux, Keimform, P2P. Sounds like the
world is really needing this...

Well, at least I now know what I did put my energy in so far...



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]

[2 text/html]

Thread: joxT00328 Message: 10/24 L9 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00375 [Homepage] [Navigation]