[Chapter-delegates] Internet data and research

[Evan Leibovitch]

Hi again,

On 12 December 2013 04:12, Michael Kende <kende at isoc.org> wrote:


> My current thinking is to have an Amazon style review section, wherein we
> can rate the report (e.g. With stars) and then provide reviews, and as with
> Amazon the author is of course free to respond as well.  Editorial control,
> if any, in this case would be limited to ensuring that the posts are
> professional.
>


"Amazon style" will work OK, though it will be worth revisiting after a
while of use. I personally like the Reddit-style "vote up/vote down"
approach that enables chapters to order materials by utility.


Would your idea be to review each paper or select papers, and then there
> would be an online journal?  Would it also be for new work?  I had thought
> it might be interesting to pick a theme and then have a seminar with the
> resulting papers.
>

The first instinct is to put up each paper whether reviewed or not. As I
mentioned in my first post, my preference would be that you would be the
primary reviewer but you shouldn't be expected to look at everything.

Part of my interest here is not just focusing on a given paper's accuracy
and legitimate methodology, but also its utility in assisting ISOC and
Chapters in their own work. Material that is accurate but archaic or too
theoretical may be of limited use to us despite its academic validity.

I would also urge the collection of materials that may not be strictly
considered academic research, but may be of great value to ISOC and
Chapters in their efforts to make Internet Governance issues accessible and
better understood. Ted Talks and unpublished "gray literature" IMO, have a
legitimate place in your repository even though you might not explicitly
categorize it as formal academic research. So long as they are identified
as non-scientific, or analysis rather than input data, I believe they can
serve real benefit to the community.

As just a recent example, I came across what I consider to be an excellent
example of an accessible explanation of (some aspects of) internet
governance and self regulation, in the form of an excelent
podcast<http://freakonomics.com/2013/11/14/who-runs-the-internet-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/>by
the authors of the
"Freakonomics" <http://freakonomics.com/> books.



>  Also, as I have been putting together the database I would divide things
> into four categories
>
>    - data sources, provided by governments or IGOs (e.g. ITU, UNCTAD)
>    - data sources, provided by companies often with accompanying reports
>    (e.g. Cisco, Akamai)
>    - reports written by NGOs, consultancies, etc. (e.g. McKinsey, WEF)
>    - papers written by academics
>
>
I would break it down by nature as well as source:

   - Data sources provided by public bodies (governments and treaty
   organizations)
   - Data sources provided by private bodies (companies, consultancies,
   market research)
   - Data sources provided by media organizations
   - Data sources provided by academia  (colleges, think tanks, journals,
   unpublished)
   - Data sources provided by NGOs and NPOs
   - Analysis by public bodies
   - Analysis by  private bodies
   - Analysis by  media organizations
   - Analysis by  academia
   - Analysis by  NGOs and NPOs

and, of course

   - Analysis by ISOC and Chapters


 Do you envision treating any of these categories differently for purposes
> of review and/or commentary?  I had not, at least for the Amazon style
> reviews, but perhaps for the editorial reviews?
>


My criteria would not be source as much as suitability. We should establish
the objectives of having this repository as it serves the ISOC mission and
bylaws, from there we can determine the relevancy and suitability of
materials solicited for the repository, and do our reviews accordingly.

- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131212/8913974d/attachment.htm>