{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023809523809523808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013888888888888888, 'mean_word_length': 4.832369942196531, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Collective Resources Meets Puritanism

A note and an afterthought on the paper by Philip Kraft and Jorgen Bansler “The Collective Resource Approach: The Scandinavian Experience” presented at the Participatory Design Conference, Cambridge, MA, 6&7 Nov. 1992 Introduction I received the aforementioned paper from Jorgen Bansler in late October 1992, too late to comment on it before it was presented at the PD conference. However, I read the paper in January 1993 and it turned out that the paper was marked by several flaws, e.g. of the kind where a claim is made with reference to a paper that says the opposite of what is claimed (for an example see the section on misrepresentation below). The sum of these flaws is a misrepresentation of the whole Collective Resource Approach (CRA). And when all misrepresentations, errors, etc. are stripped away it turns out that the paper presents no valid evidence in support of the claims made in the abstract or the conclusion. COLLECTIVE RESOURCES MEETS PURITANISM