Comments on: the reputation economy

By: Jack Dougherty, “Storytelling and Civil Rights: From Dissertation to Book to Web-book” « How Historians Research, Write & Publish

Wed, 06 Oct 2010 20:54:42 +0000

[...] media means that the only working system is publish-then-filter” (Here Comes Everybody 98). . . [Read this Fitzpatrick (2009) passage in context] [...]

By: Kathleen Fitzpatrick

Kathleen Fitzpatrick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:21:10 +0000

Excellent point, Paul; I do think that discussion needs to be pulled into the main text — if only to emphasize the degree to which we as a community must take responsibility for the collegiality with which we conduct ourselves…

By: Nick Mirzoeff

Nick Mirzoeff — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:06:43 +0000

I suppose this discussion highlights the “pharmakon” of the term peer itself: in one usage, it’s an equal as in a “jury of one’s peers.” In another it’s a noble or other aristocrat, as in “peer of the realm.”

By: Paul F. Gehl

Paul F. Gehl — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:10:47 +0000

Footnote 32 here contains information about misogyny that some of your more generalists readers might want to read in text. Another example of bias of a different sort would strengthen your important point here. The simple fact is that some communities –independently of the “majority of idiots” phenomenon– are more supportive and collegial than others. The narrower the interest, the smaller the interest group and the more likely the community will be supportive. Adding anonymity, in many if not most cases, simply encourages individuals to act outside community norms and therefore to be less than constructive.

By: valfazel

valfazel — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:17:36 +0000

(second to last sentence) maybe should be “is less the date that is being filtered, than the human filter itself . . .”

By: FXPAL Blog » Blog Archive » On the shoulders of giants

FXPAL Blog » Blog Archive » On the shoulders of giants — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:20:22 +0000

[...] of academic, peer-review publishing and argues for revising the process to be more open. In one section, she makes a good case for reviewer reputation as a necessary requirement for open reviewing (the [...]

By: David Parry

David Parry — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:52:42 +0000

David Weinberger makes a similar point when he argues with respect to journalism that, “transparency is the new objectivity.”

By: David Parry

David Parry — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:50:15 +0000

Perhaps, but I think the issue of flag and patrolled versions doesn't change your analysis here. In fact in one regard Wikipedia is actually now more open. See Wales's response to recent changes.

By: Kathleen Fitzpatrick

Kathleen Fitzpatrick — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:47:19 +0000

I need to tinker with this discussion some, to account for Wikipedia’s recent addition of flagged and patrolled revisions.