I think the idea of the Cyberjournal is still fascinating, yet the idea of anyone being an editor, that "all" can be editors, could possible lead to chaos and babel. I mean, what happens if twenty-some people decide to edit a piece, among which are at least twenty points-of-view concerning tone, style, organization, and such. What happens if two or three editors want to be a cog in the wheel, if that's the phrase? What happens when two or three, or just one, of editors says that the text is not "sufficiently prepared"?
It seems to me that you are describing an eidtorial board where everyone is equal. That sounds great in the abstract, yet the final decision must rest with someone, at least it seems it should when decisions need to be made.
I am left wondering still about the concept of rhetorical delivery via the Internet technology. What makes for good delivery, the rhetorical aspect of delivery, not the technology aspect? I think for the Cyberjournal to be a success, for it to be a factor in whatever it's focus may be, it needs some concept of itself and it's underlying rhetorical components. I'm not sure that the concept of "all" as peers will ensure that success.
Nonetheless, I'd like to be counted in.
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 10:38:23 -0500 Sender: CyberJournal for Rhetoric and Writing
From: Richard Long <@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu:RLONG@UBVMS.BITNET> Subject: Re: all: editing?