[EM] I don't oppose hosting of the "journal" by DC

[Michael Ossipoff]

My comments earlier were about the matter of whether Jameson's
"journal" idea makes any sense.

It doesn't.

But I still agree with Adrian's decision to be willing to host the
"journal" at Democracy Chronicles.

DC's hosting of the "journal" can have only a favorable effect, as
regards my DC articles and their purpose

Anything hosted at DC will bring more people to DC. That means that
more people will find my articles there. I'm in favor of that.

The purpose of my articles is to bring the best voting system
proposals to people's attention.

And to show how a better voting system can bring societal improvement.

And to show  how Approval and Score can be used, what it would be like
to use them, and thereby to thereby show their power.

More going on at DC benefit's that purpose.

And, looking at it on a larger scale, of course hosting any service,
including the "journal", will enhance the popularity-growth of the DC
website. A website can benefit from any such enhancement. There can
come a point when a website's growth shows itself to be exponential,
when it takes off. Who knows--The hosting of the "journal" could be
the turning point where DC's popularity enters a steep exponential
increase.

And no, Adrian hasn't contacted me about this, and I haven't
corresponded with Adrian about it. I'm speaking spontaneously.

Though I agree with and applaud Adrian's decision to host the
"journal", that doesn't mean that Jameson's journal idea makes any
sense. It doesn't mean that I have to say that an amateur
"peer-reviewed"  "journal", reviewed by amateurs, is a worthwhile
idea.

The thing that Jameson said that makes the least sense is that any one
of several reviewers could, unilaterally rule that an article be
blocked from reader-access.

Someone posts something you disagree with. So you post a message
expressing your disagreement. It's a question of "reviewing" it before
or after it posts. At EM, and at DC, if a posting or article says
something with which you disagree, then say so. But be sure to give
reasons, specify what your disagreement is, and tell why others should
believe you. That's a fully adequate "review" system.

Jameson wants a different way of fighting wrongness: He wants to
censor or ban it, if even one amateur doesn't like it. If all of the
reviewers were qualified for that job, that might be a little better.
But, as Jameson described it, any amateur can, unilaterally, block an
article from reader-access.

Jameson even admitted that he doesn't like the effect that that
non-democratic exclusion system has on the content of professional and
academic journals. He points to the more varied content of EM as an
advantage over the journals. But what is he thinking then, when he
wants to start another "journal", reviewed by amateurs.

No article will be barred from publication unless it doesn't "prove"
its statements. As judged by some amateur? Maybe an article could be
banned if it makes a claim that is proved false. Same objection. Much
better to just add a comment, telling why you think a statement is
wrong, and let the readers decide for themselves which argument is
more convincing.

What if someone submits an article, and an unqualified amateur
reviewer doesn't understand the proof?

I should emphasize that, no matter how irrationally articles and their
statements are evaluated in the "journal", there are a number of
reasons why that won't affect me, or the above-mentioned purposes of
my articles. Though it might have sounded like that, the matter has
nothing to do with me, and my criticism of the "journal" idea is
purely on general principles, not because of how I expect that it
could affect me or anything that I'm doing. It won't.


For one thing, of course the one-amateur-exclusion only applies in the
"journal" itself, and has no effect on my articles at the original DC
article-space.

>From what Jameson said, the "journal" will only be about, and accept
articles about:

Definitions of methods and criteria

Matters regarding whether one criterion compliance implies another,
including matters of equivalency.

Relative strength of two criteria.

Methods' criterion compliances

Presumably a misguided and mistaken reviewer could be, himself,
reviewed, and maybe dismissed.

My articles make a few statements about criterion compliances, and the
definitions of methods and criteria. As always, if anyone disagrees
with anything that I've said, they're of course welcome to express
their disagreement. As I said, though,don't forget to support your
claims.

I'm not going to "apply" to be a reviewer. Though I won't participate
in the "journal", and though I consider it a pretentious
junior-journal, I still hope that the "journal" is  a great
success--if it is hosted by DC--a hosting decision that I emphatically
agree with.

So, Richard and Jameson, I wish you great success with your "journal".

Mike Ossipoff