Great, things start to get interesting I think I am wondering how one could present nicely such “threads” comparing a paper with related work. This is essentially a footnote, but in an online version footnotes could be actually open discussion threads on specific cited papers in which the authors could also answer? And depending on how the discussion goes the corresponding sentence summarizing the relationship of a certain paper with related work could be updated over time
Discourse has a mechanism called staged users that allow to engage by email with people who are not on the platform. This, then, would be quite easy. If the authors choose to participate more actively, they can activate their account and have their previous contributions associated with that account. All we need is to configure an incoming email to allow for public comments by email.
Perfect! I know Salvatore personally and I could also invite him if this helps. It would be great similarly to the quotes from other articles embedded in the article to embed “discussions with the author” below paragraphs commenting on related work
Super, I also know Dan and appreciate him a lot, indeed read this paper this summer with great pleasure, please do invite him
I actually quoted him in a previous post:
Not only does this article describes didactically and in great detail the functionning of predictive algorithms but he explains further develops on how we could use sociologist thinking to engage a process that would lead to “recalibrating our relationship to our tools” with the aim of creating a bed for technology practices that would be profitable to convivial structures, such as for example Illitch vision of communalism or Paolo Freire’s idea of pedagogy.
This is thoroughly different from a complete and uncontrolled opening of technologies that would for example give access to all data as the latter would indeed allow for appropriation and creativity by people, however while it would acknowledge the necessity of transforming existing social structures, the process will always fall back into existing systems of domination.
Nice, I am a little overwhelmed these days but I was thinking to invite also an author of another experimental submission on mapping who is behind this project http://justplace-london.blogspot.ch/p/map-visualisations.html (similar to one of your case studies in Belgium) and who actually met yesterday with Dan More soon!
Great to have you up here and thanks so much for taking the time to respond precisely
On this we really completely agree, apropriation and new aesthetics are crucial to the change in perception preliminary to any social change.
I really was heartfully companion to “la cura” when it happened, as I felt it was a unique experience much more than a metaphor I understood it as a transformation of the paradigm of our relation not only to data, but also to scientific organisation, bringing a holistic approach to disease.
My point of critic comes from the fact that I do not think this unique experience can be reproduced as is in our current social organisation; neither in the media environment (as you say for privacy reasons) or behind the closed doors of the artworld (because it does not work as a metaphor, it has to be experienced).
In order to follow up on la cura, I believe that we need to continue with its spirit and continue making holistic and critical interventions in as many contexts as we can, engaging different lines of thought
transversally out of the global data collection and keeping alternative networks alive.
This is what we mean by third technoscape
The danger of presenting things that way, is that the datafication discourse says the same thing they always need more data and want to aggregate more information transversally etc… But how to discriminate between what you should measure or not, is there any objectivity in data correlation. I think the most important things of this world cannot be measured and it wish it stays that way.