One problem that I see is that in the scholarly process, it is the author who takes the feedback and changes the text prior to an editorial vote on whether to accept the article. That allows the author to incorporate the feedback and still feel a sense of continuity with the rest of the article. Another difference is that the "article vote" comes at the end of the process when the author thinks the article is ready not a vote on each change. I think combining the Wiki process with the scholarly approach has advantages for both. Susan
At 12:59 AM 10/14/2006 -0700, Mike Johnson wrote:
Jon,
I think you make a very good point that there exist traditional avenues for dispute resolution between scholars.
The issue I see is that scholarly norms and instincts may occasionally malfunction in a novel, text-only social context, so it'd be nice to have a resolution policy to fall back on.
I'm reminded of the this article exploring how frequently (text-only) emails are misunderstood:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0515/p13s01-stct.html
Mike Johnson
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
520 O'Dowd Hall
Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48309
Phone: 248-370-2188
Fax: 248-370-2589
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
