{"id":6018,"date":"2017-05-06T07:40:20","date_gmt":"2017-05-06T07:40:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=6018"},"modified":"2017-05-22T03:35:34","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T03:35:34","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-10-peer-production-and-work\/peer-reviewed-papers\/producing-a-knowledge-commons-tensions-between-paid-work-and-peer-production-in-a-public-institution\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Producing a Knowledge Commons)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:\u00a0Anonymous<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article is a well-structured paper with several clearly identified sections (literature review, methodology, etc.) which makes the reading clear. It is also well-written.<\/p>\n

While the contribution of this paper might be of interest to the peer production literature, the paper as it stands is not ready for publication and needs major revision. At this point the data provided does not provide sufficient proof for the claim made. The author(s) can either tone down their claim or try to strengthen the articulation of their data to sustain their claim. I would also strongly recommend to change the abstract where it is claimed that unpaid labor organized via a para public institution, produces a Knowledge Commons that the author(s) affirm may be difficult for capitalist forces to appropriate.<\/p>\n

The comparison on page 12 between the peer production logic at the Marie-Victorin Herbarium and Mechanical Turk seems unsubstantiated. These two \u201cprojects\u201d are very different in scope, goal, and intention, among others. Moreover, thanks Trebor Scholz\u2019s research and others, we now know that Mechanical Turk micro taskers are primarily poor white Americans and South Asians (mostly Indians) who by lack of economic opportunities engage with this platform. The author(s) does not make clear where s\/he or they see the points of convergence. Additionally, since we know very little about the volunteers behind the Marie-Victorin Herbarium project the comparison about volunteering is problematic. The volunteers might be happy with the contribution that they make, but who are they? Are they privileged financially? Do they have the time to volunteer, and if so why? Can we know more about who are the individuals doing the voluntary work for Marie-Victorin Herbarium? Are they senior citizens, retirees, students, or a motley crew of volunteers? What are the genders of these individuals? This would be an important information to add to the paper. A paragraph for instance could be added in the methodology section. This would be a start for the reader to better understand the claims of the author(s). It would also enrich the theoretical section on peer production.<\/p>\n

It would be worth exploring whether budgetary constraints in the Quebec and\/or Canadian context has had impact on the fact that such collaborative project emerged. This is only mentioned late in the paper and only in passing: \u201cIn the context of scarce resources… (p.12)\u201d Can we know more about whether this project used volunteers in part as a way to reduce the cost of such paid work? Even though the paper attempt to highlight the points of view of the volunteers this information would still be relevant.<\/p>\n

The claims made by the author(s) that this peer production logic might be difficult to be recuperated by capitalism at this point is unsubstantiated. As a provocation \u2013 in an attempt for the authors to better argue their case – can we instead think that this logic is typical of capitalism? The fact that the curator and coordinator of the project are overburdened seems to be an indication that capitalism is well at work and might in fact easily be recuperated. Can we not think that in the future, para-public institution will start using such method to deal with scarce resources?<\/p>\n

Moreover, is the perception of volunteers – that they are not exploited – enough to claim that capitalism is not at play here and cannot be (re)appropriated? As it stands the demonstration is not strong enough to make such claim. To take an easy example, Facebook users might not feel exploited by using the social networking site, they might feel it is a win-win situation, but we now know that the economic model of facebook is based on user content production. With a para-public institution it might in fact play out differently, but the demonstration given up to now is not strong enough for the claims made. If the author(s) are able to articulate her, his or their claim(s) better, then there could be a great contribution to the peer production literature. However, more work on the article is needed to suggest such claims.<\/p>\n

Also, what is the public funding situation of the Marie-Victorin Herbaratorim? How has it changed in the past years? Has the Quebec and\/or Canadian austerity measures affected its budget and how? There needs to be a paragraph written on the scarcity of financial resources.<\/p>\n

An interesting Special Issue that might help the author(s) think through these questions is the recent work of S\u00f6derberg, J & Delfanti, A. (eds). \u00abSpecial section: Hacking hacked!\u00bb, Science, Technology & Human Values 40 (5), 2015. There introductory article aims at conceptualising the idea of recuperation (capitalist recuperation) and suggest that such a theoretical framework is a productive tool for analyzing the life cycles of digital innovation, including peer production.<\/p>\n

In the section on digital labour scholarship, I would add the work of Ulises Mejias who not only talks about the concept of \u201cplaybour\u201d, which might be relevant to examine in the case at hand, but also his demonstration that while the network seems to broaden participation it also exacerbates disparity and excludes more than includes. This demonstration is made in his 2013 book : \u201cOff the Network: Disrupting the Digital World\u201d.<\/p>\n

Museums and libraries are para-public institutions. It might be important to specify, because the Marie-Victorin Herbarium is not any kind of \u201cinstitution\u201d, it is a para-public one.<\/p>\n

Finally, the figures were unfortunately missing from articles. It would be great to see them for the next iteration of the peer review process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer:\u00a0Steve Collins<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Is the subject matter relevant?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, the subject matter falls well within the scope of the Journal of Peer Production.<\/p>\n

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting?\u00a0Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The subject matter is intellectually interesting and engaging. The article\u2019s literature review covers relevant critical theories.<\/p>\n

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are no noticeable problems.<\/p>\n

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

Yes, the article is well written. I spotted just one very minor typographical issue – Page 4, para. “The need to account …” – the apostrophe in Terranova’s is actually a single quote.<\/p>\n

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

At present I think the article is very engaging but there are a few points that I would invite the author(s) to consider:<\/p>\n