{"id":8942,"date":"2021-11-28T01:35:47","date_gmt":"2021-11-28T01:35:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=8942"},"modified":"2022-02-20T22:05:32","modified_gmt":"2022-02-20T22:05:32","slug":"reviews","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-15-transition\/peer-reviewed-papers\/civic-spaces-collaborative-commons\/reviews\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviews (Civic Spaces and Collaborative Commons)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Review A<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: A<\/h1>\n

Reviewer: Roberta Buiani<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) Is the subject matter relevant?<\/h3>\n

This article examines the case of Civic Tech Toronto, using the concept
\nof the commons to illuminate its particular organization and structuring.
\nthe subject is quite relevant, especially given the particular status of
\ntechnology and the very diversified technology sector in Toronto as well
\nas its uneven relation with governance, economy and community. also
\nvery relevant the final observations regarding the transition online due to
\nthe pandemic, and the impact this had on the way organizations such as
\nCTTO have reacted (and other similar initiatives relying on hands on and
\npractical work and encounters among people often not familiar with each
\nother).<\/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?<\/h3>\n

The essay draws a general picture of the actual typical interactions and
\nrelationships unfolding at CTTO. the author makes extensive use of
\nBauwens\u2019 characterization of the commons, while only mentioning Hardt
\nand Negri and Federici. I understand that Bauwens might address the
\ntech context more directly. However, the literature on the commons is
\nmuch wider, especially on the tech side. Using Buawens as an authority
\n(and also considering his recent controversial \u201ctech-bro\u201d turn against
\ninclusivity) feels a bit reductive, or at least makes me feel there is
\nsomething missing<\/p>\n

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author\u2019s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?<\/h3>\n

The author described how CTTO organizes its events. I was expecting a
\nmore thorough (or detailed) analysis of how events happened, especially
\nhow the relationships built during these events. In addition, I thought the
\nwhole part regarding the lit-review and the methodologies were
\nsomehow distracting from the core of the argument. they felt a bit like a
\n\u201cdissertation proposal\u201d and less like an exciting account of a vibrant
\ngroups with potentials and problems.<\/p>\n

4) Is the article well written?<\/h3>\n

The article could use some re-organization. while reading the article, I
\nwanted to read a straightforward definition of what \u201cthe Commons\u201d here,
\nbut I kept getting fragments. In addition, at the moment, the core mostly
\nlies in the second half of the essay (that\u2019s when the article really became
\ninteresting and relevant). I am wondering how the author would feel like
\nanticipating 3.4. before and even putting 4. before 3 (the author
\ndiscusses Civic Tech as commons, before describing them, maybe the
\nsolution is to accompany each comparisons (as commons, as platform)
\nto its own description?<\/p>\n

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?<\/h3>\n

If I may give some advice, I would suggest that the two long paragraphs
\nat 1. listing methods and academic motivations be shortened (maybe to
\n1 short paragraph? the reader needs to know how and why the
\nargument is made, but only as far as it is directly linked to the subject
\nitself). This will leave more time and space to dig into the social, cultural
\nand power dynamic occurring (the latter not even mentioned, even when
\nthe author addresses the lack of \/yet the presence of internal
\nhierarchies). this seems to me an important point, because it really
\ncharacterizes the peculiar status of CTTO in relation to the notion of the
\ncommons.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review B<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: B<\/h1>\n

The language holds a good level, there is empirical research in the bottom of the article, and the
\ntopic is relevant to JoPP. That being said, the author has written the article like s\/he was an
\nideologue of Michel Bauwens, no attempt is ever made to explore and problematize that theoretical
\napproach.<\/p>\n

Rather, the case is held up to tick off that Civic Tech Toronto fullfiles the conditions of a CBPP.
\nThis qualifies as an \u201dexternal critique\u201d in the critical theory-sense, i.e. The author’s critique is not
\nbuilt up from the views of the respondents themselves, (except for a complaint in the begining by
\nthe author that the respondents are not using the desired terminology about themselves). CBPP is
\napplied as an external measure rod to evaluate the discourse of the practitioners. Case description
\nand theoretical resources are interfoliated like a smooth jigzaw pussle, but much too smooth. What
\nare the discording voices within CTTO, it never shows in the material. CTTO are declared to value
\npluralism, but that plurality of voices do not shown up in the discussion. Nor is the theory seriously
\nput at risk by meeting inconsistencies in the empirical material. Indeed, references go to scholars of
\nvery different temperament and ideas (Jasanof, Feenberg, Negri….) without any mentioning of how
\nthey could (or could not) fit together. A sustained discussion of the incompatibilities between the
\nvarious theoretical resources that the author draws on is lacking and much needed.<\/p>\n

The author would be helped by reading and referencing to scholars who have studied similar
\nphenomena, hacklabs\/hackerspaces (Maxigas) and Hackatons (Irani), etc., several of whom have
\npublished in JoPP, but where the empirical material is mobilised to qualify the often idealised
\npicture of CBPP, in scholarly and media discourses and in the actors self-representations, as
\nexpressed in statements like this one:<\/p>\n

\u201d… reticence to monetize the community and its work), all are committed to a vision of the use-
\nvalue of the community, even if those visions are pluralist and complementary.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Review C<\/h2>\n
\n

Reviewer: C<\/h1>\n

The Author sets out to describe a civic tech network, Civic Tech Toronto, as a site for
\nCommons Based Peer Production (CBPP) and suggest possible orientation for the mentioned
\norganization (and similar ones) for the future. The article is very engaging and picks up on
\nkey issues relevant for understanding the intersection of democracy and technology and
\nunderstanding sites of CBPP as drivers for policy change and toward sates as key actors in
\ncreating conditions for egalitarian modes of production. With a better balance in the
\npresentation of key concepts such as \u201ccivic tech\u201d, \u201cCommons Based Peer Production\u201d,
\n\u201cCommons\u201d and \u201cPartner State Approach\u201d, the text could be made more clear, concise, and
\nunderstandable. In the current state, the theoretical backdrop is presented through out the text
\nwith uneven focus, making it less accessible and at time confusing. This is unfortunate,
\nbecause it is clear that the author has very interesting insights and knowledge on the subject,
\nthat are very valuable to the JPP community.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reviewer: A Reviewer: Roberta Buiani 1) Is the subject matter relevant? This article examines the case of Civic Tech Toronto, using the concept of the commons to illuminate its particular organization and structuring. the subject is quite relevant, especially given the particular status of technology and the very diversified technology<\/p>\n

Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"parent":8929,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template_full_width.php","meta":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8942"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8942"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10137,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8942\/revisions\/10137"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8929"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}