On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Pierre-Carl Langlais <langlais.qo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I may sound a bit overractive, but can't we do both? I would easily imagine > the following two-way system: > *A wiki-laboratory, which hosts quick and less quick projects in progress. > That could also include some reactive analysis by social scientists to > recent wikimedian and collaborative knowledge phenomena. > *A wiki-journal, that should give a definitive and quotable form to the > preceding researches and enlarge the discussions to wider disciplinary > debates. By publishing external submissions it could give some new food for > thought to the wiki-laboratory. > The relationships between the two structures would be a relevant analogy to > the mutually-rewarding dialogue between the practical and theoretical side > of scientific research.
I think we should be aware of two interesting "countervailing" trends. (1) Observe that we are STILL having this conversation on a mailing list, despite the existence of a wiki page that is in theory devoted to exploring precisely these issues. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas) It would appear that working on a wiki is extra work compared to working on a mailing list (at least for this "exploratory" phase of the conversation). That's not meant to be a normative judgment, it just points to the need for a broader awareness of what wiki-like research might look like. In particular, it may also look like "correspondence". So, let's imagine that the wiki-laboratory was already prototyped and tested on usenet. What should our next steps be? (2) Observe that the wiki journal idea is connected with a particular research obsession (for some), namely "finding experts". Of course, in order to find an expert, the expert must first have been created or manufactured. In a positive light, this means "education". In a negative light, it means regimes for producing stratification and alienation. Both, of course, exist already. So again the question is one of next steps, not something "de novo". My sense is that that practicality is usually abhorred (it's expensive, mundane, and you can't "get credit for it"), whereas theory is strongly preferred (it's powerful, efficient, and it can go on your CV). In my view, the only sensible "solution" is to dissolve the (imagined) separation between practice and theory, and look instead at the actual practices of researchers and knowledge workers, trying to support them (i.e. us), in what we actually do. _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
