Reviewer: Anonymous
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
This paper is centred on platform for collaborative online writing, Teixidora, aimed at collectivising stories of commons-related events as a way of enabling the emergence of a shared body of knowledge. Developed within the area of collaborative writing, which is one of the largest areas of peer production, the paper fits well with aims and scope of the Journal. Overall, the paper discusses an interesting and timely subject, and with a few improvements it has potential for making an important contribution to the Journal and peer production community.
2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
Starting with the title, the paper mentions a number of important concepts, which seem to be taken as self-evident, with no further explanations or contextualisation required (i.e. ‘communities of practice’, ‘networks’, ‘collaborative writing’). While these concepts may indeed be relatively well known by the readers, a brief background and outline of how they relate to the subject of the paper would help construct the argument more strongly. For example, reference to Lave and Wenger’s work on communities of practice as frameworks for learning could be useful for better defining the role of the platform and understating the factors that may limit knowledge-sharing. The author(s) also discuss the idea of networks (e.g. the discursive layer) which together with the links intended between people and technology would benefit from Latour’s actor-network theory (potentially, also in connection with approaches to learning and diffusion of knowledge). Finally, some background would be useful to be included in the state of the art in relation to collaborative (online) writing – how and why it emerged, and positioning within the broader commons-based production discourse.
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
The paper is based on a project that is still evolving and although a number of interesting aspects are mentioned by the authors (such as, the layering of the platform and the relationship between these layers, the blurring of time and space boundaries, and governance aspects around the platform) it is not very clear where exactly the innovation lies and what the main contribution to knowledge is. In terms of future research, the author(s) mention a number of directions directly related to the development of platform. Additionally, it would be valuable to expand on an observation that is only briefly noted, which seems however to be highly relevant to those studying the (digital) commons: what prevents knowledge-sharing processes (how can we actually collectivise the ‘story’?) and how these processes shape the (digital) commons in practice.
4. Is the article well written?
The article is generally well written but would benefit from some revisions and further development (as suggested in sections B, C and E) in order to construct a clearer argument and better articulate the paper’s contribution to knowledge.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
While the paper is generally well structured, there seems to be a step missing between sections 2 and 3. Following the state of the art on collaborative writing, the author(s) include an analysis of their platform, later to be followed by examples of how it was implemented and lessons learnt. A description of the actual platform would be needed prior to the analysis to better understand and follow the arguments made (elements of this are introduced in different parts of the paper, including in the analysis, but the paper could flow better if they were pooled in one introductory section between the state of the art and the analysis). Furthermore, the intersections among the three layers of the platform seem to be based on an analysis of the platform in use, which may be better placed after the discussion of the examples in which the platform was implemented.
Suggestions for improvement:
I suggest that the paper could be publishable with minor revisions, particularly regarding the contextualization of the subject area within the broader literature (e.g., brief background and outline of how the concepts mentioned, such as ‘communities of practice, ‘networks’, relate to the subject of the paper), the structure (e.g., clearer explanation of the platform and better flow between the analysis sections), and contribution to knowledge and future research (e.g., clarify where exactly the innovation lies and what the main contribution to knowledge is, expand on the areas of future research beyond the actual platform described).
Reviewer: Bram Crevits
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes. It is clear that the authors selected a highly relevant and interesting case of peer-production.
2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
Yes. The authors use the conceptual model of ‘communicative ecology’ in order to obtain a more comprehensive perspective on the complex transdisciplinary process of the Teixidora.net initiative. This offers the necessary opportunity to perceive and analyse the Teixidora.net initiative as a holistic process. The authors succeed in creating an extensive analysis based on that model of communicative ecology. However, it might be interesting to further deepen links and insights with the field of education: ‘critical pedagogy’ or ‘new media literacies’; as well as to expand the understanding of the Teixidora.net project from a mere ‘collaborative online writing’ practice towards an alternative collaborative practice of publishing too. This may require the authors to explore experiments of hacktivism and civil disobedience in the field of media art or art & technology. Since Teixidora.net is profoundly about inclusion it is remarkable that a focus on (at least) the gender balance in the group(s) of participants in the techno-social community is not included. An interesting lead to start exploring this could be the article “I Could Have Told You That Wouldn’t Work” (Richards).
Richards, R. (2011). “I Could Have Told You That Wouldn’t Work”: Cyberfeminist Pedagogy in Action. University of Illinois Press. Feminist Teacher, 22(1) (2011), 5-22.
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
Only minor. The author partly bases the article on the analysis of Teixidora’s participation in three specific events. Why is the author selecting precisely these events?
4. Is the article well written?
Yes. The article is very descriptive. I would like to recommend the author to consider the use of (translated) excerpts as example of interactions and conversations within the Teixidora.net process.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
No.
Suggestions for improvement:
The article is very descriptive in its approach. It might be advisable to consider adding (translated) excerpts of Teixidora.net interactions/conversation that can exemplifying the opportunities and limitations of the process. Linking up the conceptual framework with education would be enriching: e.g. ‘critical pedagogy’ and various approaches to ‘new media literacy’. Since Teixidora.net is profoundly about inclusion it is remarkable that a focus on at least the gender balance in the group(s) of participants in the techno-social community is not included. An interesting lead to start exploring this could be the article “I Could Have Told You That Wouldn’t Work” (Richards).
Richards, R. (2011). “I Could Have Told You That Wouldn’t Work”: Cyberfeminist Pedagogy in Action. University of Illinois Press. Feminist Teacher, 22(1) (2011), 5-22.
Reviewer: Anonymous
1. Is the subject matter relevant?
Yes, the subject, a collaborative writing tool, is at the core of a wide variety of peer production processes. But it needs to be better positioned in the context of the specific issue of JoPP whose focus is on the city, and elaborate a little more on important methodological and socio-political aspects.
2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
The treatment of the subject is very interesting in that it reports and summarizes a series of concrete applications of the proposed tool under a specific theoretical framework, Foth and Hearn’s communicative ecology. However, there are certain important dimensions of the ecosystem described that need to be more carefully addressed both in terms of literature and analysis.
Urban dimension
The paper discusses the use of Teixidora in specific events but fails to develop a more context-specific approach that would provide hints about the different issues that arise from the use of such a tool in different urban settings. The “social” and “discoursive” layers are especially context specific and the communicative ecology by Foth and Hearn was developed in a very specific urban context. I think it is very important to at least reflect on the development of the Teixidora tool in an urban context (beyond individual events) taking into account the different actors and their power relationships, issues of governance, ownership, privacy, diversity, community, inclusive participation, democratic decision making, and so on. In other words, the hybridity of space (digital and physical) should be considered in the design and application of tools like Teixidora, which should be made conscious of the fact that they are to be applied in very different social, political, and urban environments.
Methodological dimension
The use of a tool like Teixidora requires sophisticated facilitation skills both at the physical and digital space. The literature is vast and I wouldn’t try to direct the authors toward specific works but recommend to try to spell out more clearly the methodological approach followed, referring as much as possible to existing work in related fields. For example, related also to the urban dimension mentioned above, participatory processes like the ones described in the paper have been discussed since many years in the field of participatory planning and participatory design, and the role of technology (but also power structures) in shaping such urban processes has been extensively studied in the interdisciplinary fields of urban and community informatics, media studies, among others. Also, in terms of practical tools, to transform collective notes to discourses there is a need for some sort of encoding and annotation of the produced texts. It might be interesting to explore open source annotation tools like https://hypothes.is/ or projects like FrameNet that deals with the lexical-semantic level and PropBank with syntax and semantics, and projects like Narrative Knowledge Representation Language within the Text Encoding Initiative that annotates the structure of text after it has been encoded in digital form; as well as annotation tools like Scheherazade, and Story Intention Graph. Finally, it might be interesting also to include in the discussion the design and corresponding methodologies of other peer production tools that face similar challenges (power, context-specificity, etc) and could provide inspiration for the future steps of Teixidora.
3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
The most important weakness of the paper is that it fails to address important elements of the social and discursive layers. Social relationships play a key role in peer production processes and cannot be reduced to a set of role with different level of engagement. The treatment of the discursive layer is also a little weak, understandably because of the limited amount of time that the tool is in use. In my opinion, it could be strengthened with some in depth reflection and references from the literature on how to address expected issues in terms of governance, lack of resources (e.g., time), etc as discussed above. I think also that the issue of “attention economy” is very important and would be interesting if one could experiment with “hybrid” methodologies, in which events include both intense online activity but also no onine activity at all. In the conclusions, the authors try to address some of the main challenges but their bullet list sounds more like a wish list and it would be nice if some more concrete steps with appropriate references are included for some of these points.
4. Is the article well written?
Yes, the article is in general well written but it would benefit from some polishing in terms of English language and perhaps some photos and screenshots of collective writing processes would give a better idea of how these look like.
5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
I would separate the state of the art from context and include a wider range of related work (see above) but also a more detailed analysis of the context including somehow the urban dimension. The four elements mentioned in Section 2 need to be revisited in light of the case studies of Section 3. I would like to see a more elaborated discussion on the social and discursive layers perhaps as a 3rd subsection of the “Lessons learned” section.
Suggestions for improvement:
– Address the urban and methodological dimensions of the application of a tool like Teixidora in different environments
– Develop more thoroughly the social and discursive layers including the above dimensions (urban and methodological) both in the context and beyond the current case studies documented.
