Message 00708 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: joxT00615 Message: 47/65 L14 [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] Journal report - 19 August 2011

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
Hi Stefan

Quick responses below:

On 08/24/11, Stefan Meretz  <stefan> wrote:
On 2011-08-19 12:48, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Hi all,

first, thank you, Mathieu, collecting the stuff and holding it together!

Second, I propose, to not go into deep debates content-wise here, but 
instead to move interesting topics as mentioned here to the main list 

Well, my perspective is that not everyone on this list is on ox-en. In fact I would say the majority is not. So it would make more sense for interested people in ox-en to come here if they want to discuss issues.

Now, to "my" points:


Perhaps a productive way to move this issue forward would be to
articulate the different positions in a formal "Debate" section
which would appear in the next issue, in December. There could be a
statement by StefanMn and/or StefanMz on why he/they think peer
production transcends current analytical categories and Maurizio
and/or someone else could write a response.

I like to do that. Since StefanMn is quite busy on his job, I would also 
do this on my own. Obviously it would my perspective, and I think I will 
address some different points as StefanMn possibly would do, but I share 
the general theses: main current analytical categories do not apply (but 
some do).

OK, good!


Our first issue had two research papers (including one by the
editor...), and the next "general/theory" one will have three. This
is not a very high number. Then with the upcoming special issues we
should have more.

I thought a way around this would be to have a couple of "invited
comments" whereby we ask people who are knowledgeable about peer
production to articulate their understanding of it. These invited
comments would not be peer reviewed and would be around 4,000 words
(?). They could be a remixed version of a text published elsewhere.
I got the idea from the Journal of Science Communication which
Alessandro edits which also has invited comments.

I do not understand the meaning of "comment" here, because a comment 
comments on another text and has to deal with the respective content, 
but does not simply remix own stuff. Did I miss the point?

Yes, agreed that the term "comment" is confusing. I just copied it from JCom, but we can change it to "invited contribution" or "invited paper".

For the general issue on peer production of CSPP here are some people
who I thought could be approached. Some are already involved in the

-Christian Siefkes
Christian did an interesting piece on "commonism" in the recently
published okcon conference proceedings, which he has agreed to adapt
for the next issue of CSPP.

-Michel Bauwens

-Stefan Meretz

-Stefan Merten

@Michel, StefanMn, StefanMz - if there is a medium-sized text (around
4,000 words?) which summarises some of your main ideas regarding
peer production and the work you have been doing it could be useful
for the P2P Foundation and Oekonux projects. In my view as it would
not be peer reviewed it doesn't matter if it has been previously
published in a different form.

Of course if StefanMn and/or StefanMz decide they want to do this
instead of start a "Debate" then that does not help the
abovementioned Suggestion 1. Ideally they could do both? The Debate
paper does not have to be very long (1,000-3,000 words).

I don't understand the difference between 1 and 2. If it is not really a 
comment, but a remix, it could be the same text.

My point was that you could have had a Debate on analytical categories and an invited contribution on general views of peer production. But we will already have a few general views, so practically they can be the same text - depending on the response : to have a Debate you need at least another person that is willing to respond to you. It is not clear to me if anyone is willing to do that at this stage. I guess we will see how things coalesce when you deliver your paper. If someone feels like responding we will have a Debate section, if not we will add your paper to the other invited contributions. 

In any case I am glad you will be contributing to the issue.




Start here:

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: joxT00615 Message: 47/65 L14 [In date index] [In thread index]
Message 00708 [Homepage] [Navigation]