[hackerspaces-theory] ping
Padraic Harley
padraic at 091labs.com
Fri Dec 28 12:34:21 CET 2012
For anyone here at 29c3, it seems there is a related workshop today at 1pm
-
https://events.ccc.de/congress/2012/wiki/Open_Access_in_the_context_of_other_open_movements
All the best,
Padraic
--
Padraic Harley - Mobile Device
Mobile: 00 353 (0) 85 2138803
Email: padraic at 091labs.com
Twitter: @pauricthelodger
On Dec 9, 2012 6:54 PM, "Dr. Glass DPM" <glass.dpm at gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree largely with what you say. I would consider a hackerspace journal
> to document, both the practice of technology AND the practice of social
> behaviors around technologies.
>
> For example, the New England Journal of Medicine is obviously focused on
> evidence based medical practices and protocol investigations. However,
> they regularly run editorials and surveys and studies about the behavior
> and culture of medical care facilities. (ie the hospital relationship if
> patient to physician interaction, nursing responsibilities, medical student
> clinical training, resident interns number of hours slept per week, etc)
>
> I see the chicken vs egg scenario, where we have to start somewhere, and
> improve henceforth.
>
> Sent via mobile
>
> On Dec 8, 2012, at 11:53 PM, Yves Quemener <quemener.yves at free.fr> wrote:
>
> > Just to clear up an issue : there seems to be two distinct journal
> creation
> > proposals being intertwined in this discussion :
> >
> > - (initiated by Jan) The creation of a journal that would focus solely on
> > "hackerspace theory", that is, the sociology of hackerspaces. I am not
> sure
> > why existing journal would be unable to accept articles on hackerspaces,
> > but I am personally not into sociology, so what do I know...
> >
> > - The creation of a journal allowing hackerspaces to publish about their
> > works in a format adapted to their own processes.
> >
> > Most people (including me) seem to talk about the second one but I have
> the
> > feeling that some posts mix the two proposals.(e.g. Andrew's question "Is
> > the goal to disseminate practical technical information or discuss
> > "theory"?"). This is a tool for disseminating technical information that
> I
> > would like to discuss. I indeed think that while "hackerspace theory" is
> a
> > worthwhile theme, the producers of scientific literature on that theme
> will
> > likely be external observers.
> >
> >
> > On the subject of the technical information journal, I think Andrew asks
> > two crucial questions:
> >
> > Why do hackerspaces need publication, what is there incentive? I would
> > argue that there are several gains for that:
> > - Ease of looking for existing projects
> > - Ease of reproduction of past result
> > - Creation of a sort of "reputation currency" (like it or not, this is a
> > tool that is more and more lacking in the growing loose federation of
> *spaces)
> > - Ability to apply for grants
> > - Visibility gains
> > - Individual authors get "science creds", whether they are researchers or
> > technicians, an articles in a CV is a good point.
> >
> > Do we really need to obey the formalism of regular science journals for
> that?
> > It really depends on the option we choose : either we publish in existing
> > regular journals, or we create a new one.
> >
> > A new journal, with a credible committee, can choose its own criterion,
> can
> > adapt to the hacker's crowd and processes, and find a format that will
> make
> > it easier to publish articles while still making it possible to be taken
> > seriously as a "journal". This is, IMHO, the hardest path. How will you
> > convince hackerspaces to comply to a format if they have no immediate
> > reputation gain (as long as the journal does not have a good
> reputation)? I
> > think that this solution should be chosen only if there is a total
> > incompatibility between hackerspaces processes and the process of
> > scientific publication.
> >
> > For now, I fail to see such an incompatibility. Unless every journal
> > answers "no, you are not PhDs, and we can't recognize something labeled a
> > hackerspace as a credible organization" to article submissions, (and I
> > seriously doubt that such a reaction is the norm) I don't think it will
> be
> > necessary to make our own.
> >
> > I do believe (and Dr Glass' experience seems to confirm) that many
> existing
> > scientific journals can publish about hackerspace projects. This option
> > requires to follow the usual formalism of articles. It is, in my opinion,
> > the path of least effort : it takes a bit more effort for documenting the
> > project but really does bring an immediate reputation boost. I also
> believe
> > that most constraints in science articles writing do have a good reason
> for
> > existing and that if we were to create a journal, there would be a need
> of
> > very similar constraints to achieve credibility.
> >
> > On 09/12/12 13:52, Dr. Glass DPM wrote:
> >> I agree that it shouldn't be a our sole purpose. I don't want to derail
> >> the current movement from being hell-bent on publishing, to please old
> >> schoolers. I merely propose that we think of the practical benefits to
> >> such effort.
> >>
> >> Think about this: Many of us work in science and science related
> >> professions; therefore we already know how to think and speak in
> technical
> >> terms. Many of us already have Masters and Doctorates which require us
> to
> >> publish on a regular basis anyhow. I have published several medical
> >> research manuscripts and book chapters and I feel comfortable with the
> peer
> >> reviewed process. I am an editor for a few medical journals as well
> >> (volunteer). I would be delighted to volunteer to lead and edit a peer
> >> reviewed publication, Open Access, for hackerspace knowledge.
> >>
> >> I believe the current energy in X-spaces is not just the technology, but
> >> the socialistic implications. I feel, like many others, that this is an
> >> incredible time for humanity that merits journalistic documentation (in
> >> addition to everything else).
> >>
> >> Take this example. E-Plasy is a medical journal which is open access
> and
> >> free to browse. However, it is a legitimate journal which is indexed by
> >> Pubmed (via NCBI) and is a good example of what we could model after.
> >> http://www.eplasty.com/
> >>
> >> I don't think peer reviewed publication is the only road towards
> "proof",
> >> but I'm not going to avoid it, when it is a useful tool that
> civilization
> >> has come to trust.
> >>
> >> Nicholas Giovinco
> >> Dr. Glass DPM - Video Podcast
> >> www.youtube.com/DrGlassDPM <http://www.youtube.com/DrGlassDPM>
> >> www.drglass.org <http://www.drglass.org>
> >> glass.dpm at gmail.com <mailto:glass.dpm at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> On 8Dec, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Andrew Schrock <aschrock at usc.edu
> >> <mailto:aschrock at usc.edu>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think that's a good question: the intention to get credibility? There
> >>> are very real stakes for those of us in academia to adhere to journals
> >>> that have a higher reputation. Publishing of research in these journals
> >>> is connected with better chances at promotion, getting grants, and so
> >>> on. Scientific research should be open-access, authors are rarely paid,
> >>> and there are increasingly few reasons to justify the exorbitant fees
> >>> charged by journals to universities. The stakes are high for academics,
> >>> but if you're not in that world, the rewards for participating are much
> >>> lower.
> >>>
> >>> So maybe we can come back to thinking about what hackerspaces hope to
> get
> >>> from a more formalized publishing venue. What would the audience be for
> >>> such a publication? Would even it need "peer review"? Is the goal to
> >>> disseminate practical technical information or discuss "theory"? IMHO
> >>> members have a great interest in the former and a near allergy to the
> >>> latter. If the test of worthiness is like code (does it run? Is it
> >>> useful?) is there even a need for relying on a publishing metaphor
> like a
> >>> journal?
> >>>
> >>> Just to throw it out there, one trick from the academic world is to
> look
> >>> in cons or other gatherings for interested parties to write articles.
> >>> Thematically, I am thinking more about topics that are about what
> >>> hackerspaces do well, rather than think exclusively about empirical
> >>> science. In which case the audience would be crossover
> >>> academics/hackerspace members/tinkerers. Topics might include
> >>> histories (think about a larger scale chapter in /the beginning /PDF),
> >>> organizational patterns (what's working and why), case studies of
> >>> projects, and pedagogy (why is hands-on learning necessary?).
> >>>
> >>> A
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 8, 2012, at 3:54 PM, Dr. Glass DPM wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Our intention with pursuing this was for establishing credibility for
> >>>> the Hacker/maker movement, with the traditional academic world, no? I
> >>>> don't feel that the traditional academic arena's are 100% flawed
> beyond
> >>>> hope.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good scientific exploration and application is already being done
> >>>> everyday by x-spaces around the world. Why not organize a publication
> >>>> effort for a standalone science journal?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nicholas Giovinco
> >>>> Dr. Glass DPM - Video Podcast
> >>>> www.youtube.com/DrGlassDPM <http://www.youtube.com/DrGlassDPM>
> >>>> www.drglass.org <http://www.drglass.org/>
> >>>> glass.dpm at gmail.com <mailto:glass.dpm at gmail.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8Dec, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Jo Walsh <metazool at gmail.com
> >>>> <mailto:metazool at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bollocks. There's no such thing as real science. There's only natural
> >>>>> history.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For reference management worth looking at openbiblio.net
> >>>>> <http://openbiblio.net/> and other projects of the Open Bibliography
> >>>>> group of the Open Knowledge Management. For a modern perspective on
> >>>>> academic data sharing. Journals are 18th century technology run by a
> >>>>> cartel, and plugging into that system ain't going to help it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> quemener.yves at free.fr <mailto:quemener.yves at free.fr> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: "maxigas" <maxigas at anargeek.net <mailto:maxigas at anargeek.net
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i think for most hackers/hackerspace participants it is too
> much
> >>>>> hassle to engage with formal science, which is deemed simply
> >>>>> too slow
> >>>>> and top-down. you know the joke that "real programmers don't
> write
> >>>>> documentation". i would be happy if more of the cool stuff
> which
> >>>>> people make in hackerspaces would be at least documented. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, I am of the opinion, like many open source developers and
> people
> >>>>> I met in hackerspaces, that a project is useless, unless it can be
> >>>>> easily reproduced in another place. That usually means to have a
> >>>>> correct documentation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One of the first question, when a cool video is posted, is :
> where is
> >>>>> the source code
> >>>>> ? What
> >>>>> chip/engine/batteries/display are you using? How
> >>>>> did you wire that thing? The open source/hacker community do not
> have
> >>>>> clear commitees to accept a project as interesting, but some
> emergent
> >>>>> criterions appeared, and the ability to make the same thing at
> your
> >>>>> place is a crucial one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> De: "maxigas" <maxigas at anargeek.net <mailto:
> maxigas at anargeek.net>>
> >>>>> when i wrote my first proposal for my phd, several people
> commented
> >>>>> that what hackerspaces do is not "science", so i can't
> interpret it
> >>>>> as a science going against some basic tenets of mainstream
> science.
> >>>>> :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well it is true : what hackerspaces do is not science, and the
> tenets
> >>>>> opposed by "mainstream science" are actually very good. Typically,
> >>>>> hacking projects are just fun things you want to do. That is ok,
> you
> >>>>> don't HAVE to do science. But _some_ projects do f
> >>>>> ollow
> >>>>> the basic
> >>>>> steps of science research :
> >>>>> - find existing projects that come close to what you need
> >>>>> - try several solution, examine them objectively
> >>>>> - choose a final solution, make some tests
> >>>>> - propose new projects that can be based on yours.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thing is, today, you get hackers cred by making a cool video, a
> funny
> >>>>> articles and by putting some basic technical informations. Most
> people
> >>>>> see a bibliography and description of the state of the art as
> boring
> >>>>> parts that few people would read if you put it first (and they
> are right)
> >>>>> If there was an incentive to use such a format however, I think
> that
> >>>>> several projects could document their work as a scientific
> article and
> >>>>> be recognized as real science.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And all projects documentation do not suck, a lot of the things on
> >>>>> Instructables are actually very detailled. I think that the main
> thing
> >>>>> missing is a references list, and the typical structure of a scie
> >>>>> nce
> >>>>> article.
> >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Theory mailing list
> >>>>> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org <mailto:
> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Theory mailing list
> >>>>> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org <mailto:Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Theory mailing list
> >>>> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org <mailto:Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org>
> >>>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Andrew Schrock
> >>> USC Annenberg Doctoral Candidate
> >>> Twitter:@aschrock
> >>> Email: aschrock at usc.edu <mailto:aschrock at usc.edu>
> >>> Phone: 714.330.6545
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Theory mailing list
> >>> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org <mailto:Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org>
> >>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Theory mailing list
> >> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org
> >> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Theory mailing list
> > Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
> _______________________________________________
> Theory mailing list
> Theory at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/theory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/theory/attachments/20121228/92cc4524/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Theory
mailing list