[Chapter-delegates] Internet data and research

[Glenn McKnight]

Hi

Evan  I like you categories  and  we  did something similar with IEEE HTC
 in Washington a few years ago with their online  resource site.  It's
 really important for  people to metatag the article, speech, audio, video
 properly  so the search can pick up the most relevant resources.   I am
amaze d on how  ICANN's  searches  produces  little relevant  content given
their  15 years of content.  I think they also lost of their content in a
migration a number of years  ago.

My point is building the tagging options  well in advance will pay off  and
I think Evan is right

G

Glenn McKnight
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
.


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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 Ted Talks and unpublished "gray literature" IMO, have a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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20131212/2067753d/attachment.htm>