Re: Newsletter & Call for Papers WebSci'18

Hi Ruben,

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 17:09  - 20/02/18, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be> wrote:
> 
>> ...I think this explains why they haven't been widely adopted, even by expert practitioners of the technology itself.
> 
> I think the bigger problem here is the valuation that universities give to print over paper;
> I don't think it's a technological issue, as I'll show below.
I contend that the reasons Universities (and other institutions) value print over paper are basically the same as I outlined before. 
> 
>> Take 1, for example. We have all been trained on how to write sequentially (as Ted Nelson puts it…). Nobody really knows how to write hypertext properly; we don’t even know what are the criteria and parameters to evaluate hypertext as an effective media for communication (of any kind, not only scholarly!). I claim that to use the Web in a really webby way one should author “proper” hypertexts.
> 
> Maybe, but that does not make the Web a worse candidate for 1. From what you're saying, I deduce that the Web covers all functionality that print also covers for 1. So it's mature in that regard.
Well, if you are just replacing “carbon with silicon”, i.e., simply replacing the support for the documents, I don’t really see much advantage to changing the current status quo, where this already happens with the use of PDFs, for example. I was referring to truly native Web documents.
> 
> With regard to hypertext, specifically for research, I think that “clickable” references in articles are a huge leap forward compared to looking up numbers in a list. And that's just one thing.
This would be a very simple improvement from the print-based document model, with a convenient way to consume them if you are doing it on an internet-connected device. PDFs with embedded clickable links would suffice. Not enough to justify more “radical” changes.

>> Regarding 2, in addition to the issue above, there are a whole slew of new (social) process alternatives enabled by the technologies, for which again we haven’t yet found a consensus within the community on how to proceed (e.g., reviewing process, identity/authentication, provenance, social networking, etc…). I expect time will show what works, and how.
> 
> Well, the reviewing process already happens on the Web, even for articles that are designed as PDF.
> So we got that working.
Absolutely not. The Web in this case functions merely as a communications medium, supporting current practices/processes. As you say, this already happens, no need to change anything. But I’m thinking of (again) truly web-native process, as some proposals already make (I’m not going to mention specific ones…). I am sure I don’t have to detail this to you, as you know and practice that yourself.
> 
>> Regarding 3, it’s not clear at all how long will the communication made via the new technologies will really last… we see already evidence of link rot, for instance, even for recent content. For example, can we safely assume that the contents made available using the new technologies will be available, accessible and usable 20 years from now? Actually, some may even ask, Is this a real requirement at all?
> 
> Web archiving is working well so far. And one can always print a webpage.
Hmm, this sounds to me as an argument to maintain the status quo. In other words, never mind the technological archiving alternative, use paper as a backup. Then why not stick to paper?
> 
> But then again, many of the PDF articles are not printed anymore either, so that problem doesn't go away.
Right, one more reason to stick to paper, no?

> (BTW, in this context, do watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4nUe-6Ln-8)
Will do, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> So summarizing, even though your 3 requirements seem valid,
> I haven't found a reason in there not to publish in a more webby way,
I suspect we are interpreting “webby” in different ways. I still think my admittedly feeble argument as to why current technologies are still preferable, from a community point of view (including all the stakeholders, not only the researchers themselves…) still stand.
> especially given that the supposedly “print” process already takes places on the Web.
See above - “takes place on the Web” can be understood in many ways; I’m discounting the case in which the Web is being used as a digital support for “traditional” ways, for the reasons argued above and previously.

Cheers
D