[FM Discuss] Article for discussion: Publications are not for peers

[adam hyde]

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:16 -0400, Andy Oram wrote:
> Oh, I agree, and I could have warned you not to get sucked in to all
> the "future of publishing...future of journalism...future of manilla
> envelopes" (well, might as well throw them in too) discussions. There
> are far too many of them at O'Reilly.
> 

ooo...true...actually i always thought they were called 'vanilla
envelopes'...i think if we ever have an fm (un)conference we should have
the topic 're-imagining vanilla envelopes'...

adam




> Most laughable are the music recording manufacturers. "Hey, let's save a lot of money by digitizing our products...WHAT! People are making copies!!!!"
> 
> Andy
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "adam hyde" <adam at flossmanuals.net>
> To: discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 10:56:56 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [FM Discuss] Article for discussion: Publications are not for peers
> 
> hey Andy,
> 
> This 'peer review' issue is interesting. I asked a question at foocamp
> to an author (I cant remember her name) about how online media effects
> the writing process and her response was that its great that she can now
> post material and have feedback from people (peer review). This is what
> the net and digital media meant to her when it came to publishing.
> Basically, take publishing and add something on the side.
> 
> It reminds me a lot of going to see some video artists present at the
> Tate Modern some years ago. They talked about their practice, and the
> golden day of video art and what they do now. At question time I asked
> them 'what does digital media mean to you?'. Their answer, and i
> remember it clearly, was that its soooo cool to have these handy little
> digital screens on the side of the camera so you can see what you are
> filming.
> 
> That was it. They didnt get, nor did the author, that networked media is
> not an add-on to an existing practice. It transforms the entire model,
> shifts what was important away to some dusty archive and reposits
> fundamental questions about what it is we are actually doing.
> 
> I think this is why I was frustrated by the 'reimagining the book'
> discussion at foocamp. We don't need to do this, we need to reimagine on
> much much broader terms.
> 
> adam
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net
-- 
Adam Hyde
Founder FLOSS Manuals
German mobile : + 49 15 2230 54563
Email : adam at flossmanuals.net
irc: irc.freenode.net #flossmanuals

"Free manuals for free software"
http://www.flossmanuals.net/about