Re: Newsletter & Call for Papers WebSci'18

On 20 February 2018 at 12:38, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I think the main loss we're having here is a lack of mutual understanding,
> and such an understanding will not improve through ad hominems from either
> side.
> We're researchers, we should know a thing or two about sound argumentation
> structure.
>
> So, questions to all of you on here:
>
> – Do we understand why publishing things on the Web is so important?
>    That this is not a war of HTML versus PDF,
>    but rather a question of using the Web's infrastructure to spread
> knowledge?
>
> – Do we understand why conferences in general are drawn to paper-centric
> publishing?
>    Are we sufficiently critical of universities giving more value to
> Springer/ACM-published papers
>    compared to articles published on the Web—even if the latter go through
> the exact same process?
>
> – Do we see the importance and social relevance of performing research in
> the open?
>    Do we recognize the importance of having a public and verifiable
> scientific process?
>
> Also, in this case, the unfortunate irony of having a conference about the
> Web
> but simultaneously implying that the Web is insufficient for recognized
> scientific publication
> is of course something we should dare to talk about and challenge.
>
> Let's have some room for introspection and honesty.
> What is really stopping us from taking the Web seriously as researchers?
> And how can we preach one thing in our works, but practice another?
>
> I think it would be helpful if the WebSci organizers explain
> why they prefer a paper-centric workflow over using the Web,
> and whether it makes sense for them to have that discussion
> and consider changing in the future.
> Happy to contribute to a discussion session at the conference.
>
> Because the weird thing is that we challenge our PhD students
> and all fellow researchers to be highly critical about their research;
> yet when it comes to communicating about it, we're supposed to not think?
> That's not how progress works.
>
> If we as a Web community are not willing to challenge the status quo,
> then who will?
>

+1

Disruptive technologies, such as the web, inevitably take time to
propagate, and receive mind share.

It seems to me that the path to mainstream is to begin the journey as a
supporting technology.  Then people get to use it over time and see the
benefits.

Eventually the supporting technology becomes primary, and was it supported
before, in turn, becomes supporting.

>
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>