I have just been working on my Wiki paper, which was accepted with minor(ish) revisions and I’m trying to work out how and when I developed the diagram in my post on Wiki Pedagogy in colour. It’s not like I can reference my blog post, is it? Perhaps I should, although it may well be frowned upon. But aside from that, we (Luke and I) have to rearrange the methods and findings because in some places we seem to have put the cart before the horse and we need to include more student voices, but not too much, mind, because we are close to the permitted length for the journal.
We probably should have more of it done already, because with semester starting tomorrow, there will be a lot less time to work on it, but then, for the last few weeks we’ve been doing massive amounts of preparation so the semester will run easier. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. It never stops.
But given that one of the reveiwers stated
For the most part this is a particularly interesting article and the core idea of exploring epistemological considerations of using wikis in education takes the discussion around web 2 technologies forward
I feel we really need to get this paper edited and out. I have a feeling it could be an influential paper, not to blow my own trumpet or anything, but yes, I am blowing my own trumpet. And therein lies the complex circular kinds of statements we need to eliminate from some of the paper.
The problem we have, really, is that the ideas are so interwoven that it’s hard to work out which is hart and which is corse. Why has there never been a good mode of hypertextual representation of research developed? It’s all so linear.
I think the last two sentences summarise the problem nicely. It’s not a linear medium so our arguments are very strange. Still, it’s accepted and now we have McBurger (read: make it look normal-ish) it.
Reply to this Comment