Dear Mathieu,

many thanks for this link. I have forgotten this discussion. And now i can read, what i wroye 2 years before and i was very happy.

You see the very different culture of free discussion in the P2P blog. Never they moderate any comment from me. You ask for that. And why?

I read in your answer that you have this discussion about open reflection from the readers of the journal to the texts in the journal. But you don't like to follow any responsibility to the readers.

We can ask, why the authors of the texts write his text. And based on the answers, we can see two basic differences:
Some authors write only for publishing to create personal importness
Some authors write as a contribution to clarification and enlargement

The second one need the feedback, the reflection. The first hate it.

And for the people they organise the journal? I think, it is very similar.

 You can look to Yochai Benkler. All his books, all his text are free readable. And he invite the reader for her reflection.

Then look to David Bollier or Christian Fuchs. And what you see? Very different.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay


2016-10-29 10:07 GMT-03:00 Mathieu ONeil <mathieu.oneil@anu.edu.au>:

Hi Peter, Willi, all

This is an old discussion so I will summarise the main arguments:

The clear benefit of having a central archived forum such as a list vs many separate comments on articles, blog posts, social media etc is that a list is "push media": everyone interested in the journal gets it, you don't need to search content out and risk missing anything.

Moreover, I don't believe we are under any obligation to provide an open platform to anyone in our journal. As I see it, we are aiming to present persuasive and well-thought out ideas about P2P, and we debate collectively how best to achieve this goal on lists. Now, if someone wants to debate with an author, they can do so on this list, or do it privately, and then it would be up to the author(s) to decide whether they wanted to include an addendum to their article (for ex), or write another article.

Otherwise we are essentially imposing a perspective on authors, who may not wish to have to respond to all and sundry who make critical comments. For example personally I would not like it if someone made comments such as the ones at the end of the blog post linked to below to a JoPP article, as they are not respectful and it would be embarrassing for the author:

https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/discussion-a-critique-of-left-politics/2014/03/28

Opening all articles to comments would probably require moderation, a time-consuming activity. So, what I'm trying to say is that genuine, substantial discussion should of course be encouraged but that there needs to be mechanisms for this discussion to be freely agreed to by both sides - not imposed. 

cheers,

Mathieu




From: JoPP-Public <jopp-public-bounces@lists.ourproject.org> on behalf of Dr. Peter Troxler <trox@fabfolk.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 21:40
To: Journal of Peer Production's general and public list
Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] JoPP journal #9
 
Dear Willy and all

@Willy: are you referring to the peerproduction.NET site or the peerproduction.ORG site?
Commons-base Peer Production: campaign for elections and ...
peerproduction.org
Campaigns for elections and elected representatives This is the future site of a Canada-wide campaign to bring commons-based peer production into view of candidates ...

The Journal of Peer Production
peerproduction.net
Welcome to the Journal of Peer Production. The Journal of Peer Production seeks high-quality contributions from researchers and practitioners of peer production.


@all:
I'd be happy to allow discussion on articles via the site, too. I'd be happy to receive pointers / experiences with FLOSS systems ...

/ Peter