{"id":5540,"date":"2016-08-22T21:25:55","date_gmt":"2016-08-22T21:25:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=5540"},"modified":"2016-08-22T23:02:47","modified_gmt":"2016-08-22T23:02:47","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-9-alternative-internets\/peer-reviewed-papers\/anti-colonial-hacking\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Anti-colonial hacking)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

\u00a0Reviewer: Anonymous<\/strong>
\n\u00a0<\/strong>
\n1. Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong>
\nRelevant to what? This is a poorly posed question.<\/p>\n

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?<\/strong>
\nYes, it is intellectually interesting, though marginally so. Much of what is said here was already covered in Garrett and Edwards. I am not sure the framework of \u201canti-colonial hacking\u201d is much different from what they wrote, but the author has interviewed Tim Jenkin and re-covered some of that ground with a somewhat different angle.<\/p>\n

Mostly this article simply restates and reframes existing accounts. The author\u00a0 overstates the originality of his\/her contribution (\u201cthe untold story…\u201d).<\/p>\n

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/strong>
\nThe new empirical contribution of the article is another interview with Tim Jenkin, who has already written up his own experience and has been interviewed at length many times before. Apart from that, there’s no attempt to validate claims with anything other than the existing secondary literature \u2013 no new archival or interview material. The author does not question Jenkin’s account (but also has no reason to do so).<\/p>\n

4. Is the article well written?<\/strong>
\nNo. This article is riddled with typos, misspelled names (Garrets, many others), misspelled or inaccurate titles of books and articles, impossible dates (Frantz Fanon 2011???), and bad grammar. It needs a serious once-over from a better writer, and much better attention to detail.<\/p>\n

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Suggestions for improvement:<\/strong>
\n1) Serious attention to quality of writing and to getting names, dates, titles, and other details correct. (2) Reposition the article as an extension or reframing of existing accounts, rather than an \u201cuntold story\u201d with a truly new perspective. Don’t overstate what’s new here. I am not sure this article will warrant publication even after that.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: Anonymous<\/strong>
\n\u00a0<\/strong>
\n1. Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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?<\/strong>
\nNo<\/p>\n

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/strong>
\nThe article\u2019s subject matter and area of research are very interesting, and as a case study of hacking practices by South African anti-apartheid activists in the 1980s, it is compelling and could certainly contribute meaningfully to new work that considers the history of politicization of hacker communities in the 20th Century, which have focused on hacker networks in the US and Europe. The main problem with the article is in the balance between the scale of the study and the scale of its claims. It acknowledges it is a \u201ccase study\u201d of a particular hacker network in S. Africa, but seeks to make claims of anti-colonial hacking globally. And while this is an ambitious and very welcome move, the empirical material that the author brings to his\/her argument don\u2019t amount to a persuasive case. It\u2019s unclear what connection this case of anti-colonial hacking and the key values the author delineates \u2014 of collectivism, autonomy, the assemblage of a set of technology, literacy and the inclusion of women as key values \u2014 has to other\u00a0 global cases of hacking practiced in widely diverse calls for \u201canti-colonial\u201d interventions. This might include Anonymous\u2019 global network, hackers in Palestine against Israeli occupation and Latin American indigenous activists, but it might *ALSO* include the digital tactics and hacking practices of ISIS, hackers in China working against Western hegemony, or in North Korea, among other cases. It should be noted that the author does acknowledge that the paper \u201conly focuses on one case study to illustrate the concept of anti-colonial hacking\u201d as a \u201cshortfall\u201d to the paper\u2019s larger claim.\u00a0 Also, the empirical material presented also seems to fall slightly short of flushing out the author\u2019s larger claims. While the second part of the paper dedicates itself to unpacking 5 key values of anti-colonial hacking that the author delineates \u2014 of collectivism, autonomy, the assemblage of a set of technology, literacy and the inclusion of women as key values \u2014 not all 5 draw from or are linked to the empirical or historical material presented from the study of Operation Vula. More balance and use of the empirical data\/material is needed here to ground the study.<\/p>\n

4. Is the article well written?<\/strong>
\nYes, generally.<\/p>\n

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong>
\nAside from the other above mentioned recommendations, more work might be done early on in the paper to frame the dominant narrative and acknowledge cultural histories around Operation Vula. While the author mentions that such work exists and focuses on the biography of the players, little else is referenced about how that group is remembered among South African publics, local or global activists and hackers, etc. We know that they *do* appear to be remembered, in the quote given of Nelson Mandela\u2019s public recognition of the group – but what is remembered of them among other publics, where the participants live now, and what the author how the recent interviews he\u2019d conducted relate to prior reports (and if anything novel or unexpected was actually heard in such interviews), would be key to situate the reader. More work might also be done to connect Operation Vula to other specific cases of networked hacktivism and crytpographers past and present.<\/p>\n

Suggestions for improvement:<\/strong>
\nOverall, a generally stronger use\/more balanced use of empirical material collected, stronger framing of Operation Vula against other global cases of past\/present networked activism; stronger framing of historical work already done around Operation Vula and how this work contributes; and most importantly, to adjust the scale and level of the claim being made. This case study should aim to unpack the values central to *THIS* particular case of anti-colonial hacking, rather than make claims for all possible global cases of anti-colonial hacking writ large.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review C<\/h2>\n
\n

\u00a0Reviewer: Anonymous<\/strong>
\n\u00a0<\/strong>
\n1. Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong>
\nYes, both in respect of the special issue theme and more generally the question of the \u201cpeer economy\u201d as brought forward by JOPP<\/p>\n

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?<\/strong>
\nThe subject matter is treated is intellectually interesting, there are some bodies of literature that could be revised, but I made specific suggestions as part of the comments on the text itself.<\/p>\n

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/strong>
\nwould suggest the authors to give us more \u201cdata\u201d, and to further separate what sHe deduces from the data first, and then to relate these analytical insights to the literature. See my comments on the use of Fanon specifically.<\/p>\n

4. Is the article well written?<\/strong>
\nThere are a couple of phrases that are not clear for me, but otherwise the text is well organized and fluent.<\/p>\n

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/strong>
\nNot specifically, I would suggest a longer conclusion, again see my comments in the text itself.<\/p>\n

Suggestions for improvement:<\/strong>
\nI have added all my suggestions as part of the comments in the text. I believe these are substantial but not major changes.\u00a0 Suggestions are mostly of four kinds:<\/p>\n