{"id":6095,"date":"2017-05-07T12:28:21","date_gmt":"2017-05-07T12:28:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=6095"},"modified":"2017-05-07T14:10:46","modified_gmt":"2017-05-07T14:10:46","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-10-peer-production-and-work\/varia\/common-sense-an-examination-of-three-los-angeles-community-wifi-projects-that-privileged-public-funding-over-commons-based-infrastructure-management\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Common sense…)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

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

A. Is the subject matter relevant?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The question of sustainability of Community Networks (CNs) is very relevant for this journal. There has been actually a special issue in this journal exactly on this topic, Altenative Internets, http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/issues\/issue-9-alternative-internets\/<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

B. 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?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The paper presents three interesting, and diverse between them, case studies of Community Networks in the area of LA. It identifies the main reasons that led to their eventual failure and proposes a “public good framework”. This seems to imply a sufficient investment from local authorities and other stakeholders that would guarantee the seamless operation of the network and the abundance of resources.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, there is no evidence that the model that the authors have in their mind has actually worked somewhere else in the world, and it sounds in parts more like wishful thinking. In reality, there are many CNs around the world that have been more successful, using different “models”, and also a significant literature on the topic from different disciplinary perspectives which the authors seem to ignore. <\/span><\/p>\n

As starting points, I could recommend a recent report by the netCommons project on existing CNs and their organization (including the question of sustainability), http:\/\/netcommons.eu\/sites\/default\/files\/attachment_0.pdf<\/span><\/a>, and a collection of related resources here: http:\/\/diynetworking.net<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n

C. Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u00d5s means of validating assumptions, interpreting data or making judgments?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

No, but the whole treatment is more journalistic than scientific. <\/span><\/p>\n

D. Is the article well written?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The article is well written except being a little too “introductory” in parts and with a few repetitions, while at the same time missing a large body of literature on the topic.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

I would reduce the discussion on why Internet access is important today (as more or less obvious), the value of semi-structured interviews, and perhaps also the introduction on public goods. <\/span><\/p>\n

In any case, I would keep the “public good framework” only if it is presented in a more realistic way and compared with the “commons framework” proven to be really successful in the case of community networks like guifi.net<\/span><\/a> in Catalonia.<\/span><\/p>\n

Having said this, I really enjoyed reading this paper and I would like to see it published. Although I have been working in this area for many years I had never heard of these case studies and they do provide important lessons for the question of sustainability of CNs.<\/span><\/p>\n

Summary<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Would you recommend:<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n