🚀 go-pugleaf

David S. Stodolsky (david@ruc.dk) writes:
Unfortunately,  intellectual  goals  play  a  lesser   role   in   scientific
communication  then  one  would  hope.   Until comp.groupware is considered a
publication medium, we will not  see  most  researchers  who  are  trying  to
establish  themselves  posting  here.   First,  some fear their ideas will be
stolen if posted on the Net.
Surely ideas could be stolen if printed in a widely available journal?
posts do not have the same status as journal publications and will  not  help
them  get  jobs, tenure, etc.  This will certainly change, since the net is a
better medium for scientific communication.
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes it is in the ideal sense of  a  quicker,  perhaps  more  convient  way  of
sharing  research.   But  how  many  researchers, as you point out, want this?
Surely the one side of journals is to encourage elitism, a inner circle,  call
it  what you will.  The Polytechnic I go to is skint and HCI journals are very
thin on the ground- thats one way this elitism works- the scientist is someone
who ( in the popular perception ) has  access  to  and  knowledge  of  obscure
things.   Certainly,  using  this  newsgroup  like a journal COULD change this
state of affairs but I feel the problem is more general than you imply.

>2. One of the key features of scientific communication is that authors develop
>their reputations by publication and readers know the source of information.
>Recently, I have seen people posting without signatures at all or two people
>using the same signature. This is not acceptable if comp.groupware is to be a
>quality controlled news group.

Mark Poster in "The mode of information" (Polity,1990) p.116 some features  of
electronic communication which he feels make it special a I feel apply in this
case:
"1   they introduce new possiblities for playing with identities;
 2   they degender communications by removing gender cues;
 3   they destabilize existing hierarchies in realationships and rehiearchize
     communications according to criteria that were previously irrelevant; and
     above all
 4   they disperse the subject, dislocating it temporally and spatially"
It looks to me as if one of your key features isnt going to be mutated by  rn.
I dont believe better "quality control" ( in this case read "identity control")
is  possible  in  this  context.  The only way I can see this working is if
Comp.groupware becomes moderated and publications from unknown authors (like
me ) get turned down.
>For other ideas see my paper, "Consensus Journals:.." (posting soon).
But how will I know it's you [ snigger ]
>So far, however, it has been a newsgroup with consistently high quality,  and
>this is a good basis on which to proceed.
why mess with a winning combination then? ;-)

===============================================================================
James Andrews, User Support, Computer Centre, PEL, Livingstone House
Livingstone Rd, London, E15                   Tel:081-590 7722 x5130
===============================================================================