The Journal of Peer Production - New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change
Reviews (Openness, Inclusion and Self-Affirmation) image

Review A

Reviewer: Anonymous

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject is highly relevant for JPP.

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 paper is interesting, although lacks some coverage of e.g. relations between Wikipedia and Academia, other qualitative works about Wikipedia, or more generally Wikimedian governance. I’m listing just some for general reference, but the literature review could be expanded, as it is really thin. Similarly, AR literature could be referred to.

Additionally, some initiatives are relevant for the topic and should be at least acknowledged (e.g. “Whose Knowledge?”).

Greenwood, Davydd J. and Levin, Morten (1998), Introduction to action research: social research for social change (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications) xiii, 274 p.

Greenwood, Davydd J., González Santos, José Luis, and Cantón, Julio (1991), Industrial democracy as process: participatory action research in the Fagor Cooperative Group of Mondragón (Assen/Maastricht-Stockholm: Van Gorcum Arbetslivscentrum) ix, 194 p.

Konieczny, Piotr (2010), ‘Adhocratic governance in the Internet age: A case of Wikipedia’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7 (4), 263-83.

Konieczny, Piotr (2016), ‘Teaching with Wikipedia in a 21st-century classroom: Perceptions of Wikipedia and its educational benefits’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.23616/abstract.

Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An ethnography of Wikipedia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Jemielniak, Dariusz and Aibar, Eduard (2016), ‘Bridging the gap between Wikipedia and Academia’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67 (7), 1773-76.

Tkacz, Nathaniel (2015), Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

No, the article is an interesting, although non-standard contribution, and relies on a proven AR approach.

4) Is the article well written?

Yes, although it is quite verbose and could use some shortening.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

Yes. The literature review needs to be expanded. I also suggest a significant shortening on “building an indigenous Wikipedia” paragraphs. In general, the same information can be passed with less text.

Review B

Reviewer: Usha Harris

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

This paper meets its stated aim; to provide a discussion of the challenges and opportunities of creating Wikimedia content in the Atikamekw Nehirowisiw language. The authors provide an excellent understanding of the challenges around knowledge practices of Indigenous and Wikimedia communities, and insights into how these were navigated in project design. As such it offers original research on a topic which is under researched and of interest to researchers and indigenous communities globally.

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?

Social Inclusion. The authors refer to the gender and age differentiation in accessing traditional knowledge. It will be interesting to learn what effort was made to include women and women’s stories in the project design?

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

No

4) Is the article well written?

The paper requires a final redraft and thorough proofreading (too numerous to identify here).

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The Wikimedia movement and open knowledge principles. This section can be revised and tightened further.

Indigenous resurgence and the digital environment.  Can this section be shortened with some information placed as endnotes?

Information Infrastructures, Digital Ecosystems and Knowledge Ecologies. It is recommended that this section be edited down substantially. The authors may consider using this material in another article in the future.

Review C

Reviewer: Anonymous

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

It is very relevant.

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?

Very interesting and topical.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The arguments made are solid.

4) Is the article well written?

Yes

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The first section on knowledge practices at the interface of indigenous and Wikimedia communities could be shortened quite a lot.