Joe -- Thank you for bringing this report to my attention. It is absolutely apropos my interest in this thread. If I could summarize your report I would say:
There is interest in mass collaboration. Tools struggle above 10 or 20 authors. Review and publishing struggle at even smaller author counts.
The comment you quote of mine is in response to Samuel Klein's lists of more things that should be published. If we combine his list with your experience then we have a clear view of the collision that would motivate a new kind of journal, not just a new journal.
On Sep 16, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Joe Corneli wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Ward Cunningham ward@c2.com wrote:
Yup. I'm thinking the same things. Now, if all of these were the norm, how would work be different?
Some similar ideas discussed in this paper, to which I contributed: "Massively Distributed Authorship of Academic Papers" http://altchi.org/submissions/submission_wmt_0.pdf
Abstract: Wiki-like or crowdsourcing models of collaboration can provide a number of benefits to academic work. These techniques may engage expertise from different disciplines, and potentially increase productivity. This paper presents a model of massively distributed collaborative authorship of academic papers. This model, developed by a collective of thirty authors, identifies key tools and techniques that would be necessary or useful to the writing process. The process of collaboratively writing this paper was used to discover, negotiate, and document issues in massively authored scholarship. Our work provides the first extensive discussion of the experiential aspects of large-scale collaborative research.
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l