I’m taking a poll, of all two of you who are reading these days. What do you think of the name MediaCommons for an online scholarly publishing imprint, focused (for the moment, at least) on full-length texts about new media?

14 thoughts on “MediaCommons?

  1. The name suggest to me, not so much a place for text about new media, but a place to find new media.

    (And I’m still witcha, girl).

  2. Kathleen, I’ll be honest, I think it’s too generic to really communicate well. I’ll put on my thinking cap and see if I can come with any alternatives.

  3. Hmmm. I’m thinking you’re right, weez, that it sounds more media than about media, if you follow. (And I’m glad you’re still around!) And Matt, I agree that it may be too generic. Do put that thinking cap on. But here’s the thing: I’m mostly thinking, at this point, of domain-name-type names, most of which would be followed by “Publishing” or some manner of indicator of the specific activity. As a side note of sorts: It’s interesting how difficult it is to get outside the book model in thinking about such names; at first, everything I thought of had “Book” or “Press” somehow involved. So I’m trying to avoid that kind of rear-view mirror construction, but still want to be specific enough. A tall order…

  4. I find myself agreeing with the above concerns about MediaCommons, so how about the wildly original and utterly different MediaTexts ( wants $800 for a vastly inferior domain name)? It seems pretty self-explanatory, simple, and accurate.

  5. Kathleen,

    Allow me to quote yourself back….

    quote–>>Or, most riskily, perhaps, is there a means of escaping the academic-press model of publication entirely, moving to some new system of peer-review and manuscript-editing that sheds the antiquated structures of press bureaucracy and economics in favor of an open-source, communal mode of intellectual discovery?

  6. I like Jake’s MediaTexts (especially since it’s available). There’s a potential objection along the lines of tacitly making “text” the dominant discursive mode, but, well, here everything _is_ text, if not on screen then as code.

  7. I’ll chip in a vote for MediaTexts over MediaCommons as well. If nothing else, there’s the opportunity to play with the word ‘mediate’ within it.

  8. “potential objection along the lines of tacitly making “text” the dominant discursive mode” – Matt

    I think that’s why I’d shy away from MediaTexts. I understand (and agree with) your point Matt; sure, it’s all code (although after your talk – isn’t it all electrons?). But given that the centrality of text is a sort of hotspot, esp. in interdisciplinary circles, I’m not sure the caveat would appeal to most people.

    The thing I like about Commons is that, for me (and perhaps I should note that I was initially lukewarm to the name), it gives the impression of a meeting place for an exchange of various disparate views – an interdisciplinary forum .

    Whatever it’s called in the end, I think it’s a fab idea KF.

  9. Branding is fun (and spooky)!

    It’s like free association with anchors.

    I generated much amusement for myself (and now perhaps for others) by contemplating how one could reach a resonant name via some inspiration from some richly textual productions:

    The branding firm could approach Jill Walker of jill/txt and ask for a Norwegian name and then leap by association with Unicode (a scheme for the display of all those non-ASCII characters)to the brand name “Intercode”;

    The branding firm could be inspired by Matt Kirschenbaum of mgk and his work on “deep inscription” and could think of the work on ekphrasis generated through the wordherder bloggers and then by association conspire to launch the brand name “Deep Description” (shortened ranch-style to “DoubleD”;

    The branding firm could delight in Elouise Oyzon of Weez Blog and the word play there which in the past has genereated the expression “elusive ozone” and then recall that that blog author once contributed a comment to a Planned Obsolescence blog entry that gleefully suggested hobo signs as codes of welcome (and leap to a recall of George Williams’s recent mention of “HoBo” [a site formerly known as History of the Book @ Oxford])and by association create the brand name “Hobo Dimensions”;

    interhobo dimensions == IHD

    and now run IHD through a search engine and enjoy the wash of associations…. (one of my favourites is the reverse DHI — Door and Hardware Institute — Your Architectural Openings)

    One could have fun with KF + PO and play with call letters…

    KFPO — sound like a public radio station



    KPOF — close to that book publishers name 🙂

    There is always the sigil route… “The Academic Co-operators Formerly Known as Faculty”

  10. Well, here’s the thing: I’m now squatting on both MediaCommons and MediaTexts, and it strikes me that the latter might provide a text-oriented subset of the former, allowing for other not-text-privileging but nontheless related ventures in the outer domain…

    Thanks, all, for your input and advice. More on the project soon, I promise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.