No, I was giving CA credit for more than just the website, but for the idea that the journal should take an active role in promoting its authors works in new media and outside of the conventional arenas. The fact that this discussion is happening, here and on long road is the proof. I hope it eventually starts happening on the CA website itself also.

I also want to commend Casey for doing yeoman\’s work– there aren\’t as many people as skilled or as willing to do this work in anthropology/science studies as Casey– and I wish there were a lot more.

I somehow didn’t make the Web 2.0 connection in my head for numerous reasons. I read the CA 2.0 as more that we’re attempting to move to a new version of the journal rather than Web 2.0.

I also have a lot of respect for the experimentation argument, though I’ll say that my random board posting even under various pseudonyms over the years is no more anonymous than somebody with some Google skills ability to find me. That’s why I tend to post now under “codonnell” “ckodonnell” because it’s my way of just always being forward with what I’m up to. It is interesting however, because it brings up one my concerns about things like myspace or facebook being brought up in job interviews. Certain spaces are or ought to be for certain uses, and their being brought into other arenas is a bit strange. For me it’s not about privacy, but about providing spaces where it’s safe to experiment with new ideas. How precisely? I’m not sure. Definitely worth thinking more about.

As far as the sub-fields being scattered, I think if you looked at the lists that they were associated with, you’d see that certain articles do cross-cut, and as such, so would the forums. I see the difficulty this would cause for the forums, but the lists themselves I see it as a strength. The forum organization is a first shot, and even the forum asking for feedback doesn’t have any, so I just don’t really know what to say.

Right now, our primary concern is really broader reading of the journal and we’re leveraging the website for that at this point (readership/membership/etc is our bread and butter remember). Our hope is that providing professors and other interested individuals a means or mechanism into the journal. For example, pretend I’m a professor (anthropology or otherwise) with a course on humanitarianism. The goal is to provide resources that would help people find CA articles on these topical areas. We’re planning to continue adding new topics, basically making lists out of different tagging schemes. So, if someone wants to do a “games/play” list (which I am) for CA, then go for it. Perhaps someone in a game studies department will find it and check out a few articles. I’ve also heard that someone was forming an “imperialism” list, sounds great.

Thanks again everyone for the feedback.

While it is true that this could happen through published journal articles, message board posts tend to be less proofread and more “raw”. In an article or book there’s a far more deliberative process involved (and in the case of an article, peer review). For me, a message board for any social science is a way to test ideas and see if they “stick” or if everyone rejects them (with legitimate criticism of course). By not allowing anonymous posting, this experimentation is cut off. The not fully formed thought you posted at two AM could now affect your career in deliterious ways.

Beyond the general board, you have fifteen different sub-topic areas. There are many topics that crosscut each area. It would make more sense to concentrate on three or four topic areas that crosscut cultural anthropology (e.g. theory, ethnography, regional discussions and humanitarianism/activism). By having so many subtopics, it appears that the board doesn’t have a focus and that certain topics might be ignored.

I’m the editorial assistant and new website admin, and I’ll just say a bit about that.

1.) On average I get about 20-30 bogus account requests a week deriving from automated web-crawling easy-account request savvy spam-bots (some of my recent favorites: Belinda DVD, Anchorman DVD, Tlc DVD). Registration of this kind helps us get past that.

2.) It allows us to find new reviewers we might not know about. It also lets us know a bit about folks interested in using the site to discuss articles. Or who is using the site and in what ways.

3.) We’re trying to provide a space for people to talk about articles where a user using the ID “Mike Fischer” who isn’t Mike Fischer actually means something. So We’re trying to balance that.

4.) It’s all an experiment right now. We’re open to suggestions. Why didn’t you register and voice your thoughts on the forum? Asking your areas of interest, affiliation, AAA/SCA membership status, and real name (already (possibly) posted in your blog) is too invasive?

But, at the same time you are right, the forums are bare right now. Just having an improved web-presence doesn’t do the whole trick. We’re trying other things too.

We’re also hoping some interested folks get involved. We’ve got nearly 120 people who’ve registered. Honestly, I’m amazed that not a single one of those people have posted. I’d like to see the forums with material, but the editorial office is four people strong managing a 30% increase in manuscript submissions for a journal that already receives quite a few submissions. We’re also new at this.

I hope I don’t come off snarky, it’s just that after having spent the entire day doing media publicity for the new issue seeing a post saying that I’m not doing enough isn’t easy.

What are you thoughts of Anthropology 2.0? What does this term mean to you and why is it relevant to the discipline of anthropology today? I understand Anthropology 2.0 refers to the current stage in the evolution of anthropology, as a discipline being…

Anyone know what their strategy is?