Communal Validation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Communal Validation = the peer production of accredition''' | |||
In [[Peer Review]], scientific articles are vetted by scientific colleagues. | In [[Peer Review]], scientific articles are vetted by scientific colleagues. | ||
Revision as of 02:47, 18 May 2006
Communal Validation = the peer production of accredition
In Peer Review, scientific articles are vetted by scientific colleagues.
It should be noted that the process of vetting in peer production is usually different.
Definition
Peer production is based on equipotential participation (see Equipotentiality), i.e. the a priori self-selection of participants, and the communal vetting of the quality of their work in the process of production itself. Peer review is based on credentialism (= the a priori need for credentials),in contrast to peer production vetting which is based on Anti-Credentialism. Peer review is part of an elaborate process of institutional and prior validation of what constitutes valid knowledge; peer production vetting is a posteriory vetting by the community of participants.
Example
Slashdot (Owned by OSTG owned by VASoftware):
"The FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) response to, "how do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?" is revealing: "We don't. You do. If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience. This is why it's important to read comments. You might find something that refutes, or supports, the story in the main." In other words, Slashdot very self-consciously is organized as a means of facilitating peer production of accreditation; it is at the comments stage that the story undergoes its most important form of accreditation--peer review ex-post. Filtering and accreditation of comments on Slashdot offer the most interesting case study of peer production of these functions." (Benkler, Wealth of Networks page 77) (http://www.globalvillages.info/wiki.cgi?GlobalVillages/FranzNahrada/Workspace/RomeSpeech)
More Information
Jack Whitehead, who explores "Living Education Theories" says that he's "been using a peer-to-peer process of social validation (modified from Habermas' views in his work on communication and the evolution of society) in assisting individuals to create their own living educational theories as they account to themselves and others for the lives they are living and their learning as they seen to live their values as fully as they can." (see http://www.actionresearch.net and http://www.bath.ac.uk/~edsajw/living.shtml)