Peer Production and Collaboration - Revision history

BerkmanSysop: UTurn to 1303516799

2013-01-17T21:58:53Z

UTurn to 1303516799

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 17 January 2013
Line 74:		Line 74:


	Wikipedia is a is a fine model of our society. It shows how well the democratic process works, and how we can adapt it to any scale, large or small. Jimmy Wales realized that multiple heads are better than one, and has acted accordingly by creating an open base. He literally has a free staff of hundreds of millions. What is the end result? Vladimir alluded to to two important schools of thought that clash. Qualitative vs. quantative- which is superior? There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia. I attached a link of Wales talking about it- http://vimeo.com/23348756 While it still needs to be perfected, it is a fine model for other companies to follow. Ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins plans to open an online service where customers mix and match their own flavors and give input how to improve. Most companies will eventually go the route of having the masses play the role of the main contributers. [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


	I agree, Elisha, a fine model, but a part of me is old school in the sense that I do believe in hiearchical governance in companies. So many talk about lateral organizations taking over, and I disagree. It's easier said than done--a lot of politics involved. Instead of thinking it can be applied to companies, I think it can be applied within companies (e.g. board groups, affinity groups, policy groups). These groups are in a position to delegate tasks and rotate members/leaders.[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


	As I was searching for materials related to Prof. Zittrain's Generativity theory, I found quite interesting websites that might help other classmates who want to better understand this term.		As I was searching for materials related to Prof. Zittrain's Generativity theory, I found quite interesting websites that might help other classmates who want to better understand this term.
	*[http://ssrn.com/abstract=847124 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 28/2006; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006/1]		*[http://ssrn.com/abstract=847124 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 28/2006; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006/1]
Line 85:		Line 79:
	In particular, I was intrigued by the double natures of generativity of the Internet. According to Zittrain's explanation, generativity - the platform for creation and innovation - also possesses threats in itself (e.g. widespread of viruses and other badwares). Would it be possible to maintain generativity without compromising to reduce malicious codes floating around the digital world? --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)		In particular, I was intrigued by the double natures of generativity of the Internet. According to Zittrain's explanation, generativity - the platform for creation and innovation - also possesses threats in itself (e.g. widespread of viruses and other badwares). Would it be possible to maintain generativity without compromising to reduce malicious codes floating around the digital world? --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


	I found it interesting that one of the founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, does not agree or approve the core structure of Wikipedia. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17796811/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/wikipedia-co-founder-seeks-start-over/] He believes that people who are knowledgeable are waisting there time, when anyone can just change and edit there work a few minutes later. He believes, among other things, that people should use there real names. Here is a link to the alternate site he created. [http://en.citizendium.org/ Citizendium] [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
	== Links ==		== Links ==
	Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]		Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]

Joshuasurillo at 11:40, 11 May 2011

2011-05-11T11:40:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:40, 11 May 2011
Line 85:		Line 85:
	In particular, I was intrigued by the double natures of generativity of the Internet. According to Zittrain's explanation, generativity - the platform for creation and innovation - also possesses threats in itself (e.g. widespread of viruses and other badwares). Would it be possible to maintain generativity without compromising to reduce malicious codes floating around the digital world? --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)		In particular, I was intrigued by the double natures of generativity of the Internet. According to Zittrain's explanation, generativity - the platform for creation and innovation - also possesses threats in itself (e.g. widespread of viruses and other badwares). Would it be possible to maintain generativity without compromising to reduce malicious codes floating around the digital world? --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


			I found it interesting that one of the founders of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, does not agree or approve the core structure of Wikipedia. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17796811/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/wikipedia-co-founder-seeks-start-over/] He believes that people who are knowledgeable are waisting there time, when anyone can just change and edit there work a few minutes later. He believes, among other things, that people should use there real names. Here is a link to the alternate site he created. [http://en.citizendium.org/ Citizendium] [[User:Joshuasurillo\|Joshuasurillo]] 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
	== Links ==		== Links ==
	Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]		Chris Anderson: [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/people.html People Power]

Myra at 20:34, 9 May 2011

2011-05-09T20:34:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 9 May 2011
Line 76:		Line 76:
	Wikipedia is a is a fine model of our society. It shows how well the democratic process works, and how we can adapt it to any scale, large or small. Jimmy Wales realized that multiple heads are better than one, and has acted accordingly by creating an open base. He literally has a free staff of hundreds of millions. What is the end result? Vladimir alluded to to two important schools of thought that clash. Qualitative vs. quantative- which is superior? There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia. I attached a link of Wales talking about it- http://vimeo.com/23348756 While it still needs to be perfected, it is a fine model for other companies to follow. Ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins plans to open an online service where customers mix and match their own flavors and give input how to improve. Most companies will eventually go the route of having the masses play the role of the main contributers. [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)		Wikipedia is a is a fine model of our society. It shows how well the democratic process works, and how we can adapt it to any scale, large or small. Jimmy Wales realized that multiple heads are better than one, and has acted accordingly by creating an open base. He literally has a free staff of hundreds of millions. What is the end result? Vladimir alluded to to two important schools of thought that clash. Qualitative vs. quantative- which is superior? There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia. I attached a link of Wales talking about it- http://vimeo.com/23348756 While it still needs to be perfected, it is a fine model for other companies to follow. Ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins plans to open an online service where customers mix and match their own flavors and give input how to improve. Most companies will eventually go the route of having the masses play the role of the main contributers. [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

	I agree, Elisha, a fine model, but a part of me is old school in the sense that I do believe in hiearchical governance in companies. So many talk about lateral organizations taking over, and I disagree. It's easier said than done--a lot of politics involved. Instead of thinking it can be applied to companies, I think it can be applied within companies (e.g. board groups, affinity groups, policy groups). These groups are in a position to delegate tasks and rotate members/leaders).[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
			I agree, Elisha, a fine model, but a part of me is old school in the sense that I do believe in hiearchical governance in companies. So many talk about lateral organizations taking over, and I disagree. It's easier said than done--a lot of politics involved. Instead of thinking it can be applied to companies, I think it can be applied within companies (e.g. board groups, affinity groups, policy groups). These groups are in a position to delegate tasks and rotate members/leaders.[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Myra at 20:33, 9 May 2011

2011-05-09T20:33:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 9 May 2011
Line 76:		Line 76:
	Wikipedia is a is a fine model of our society. It shows how well the democratic process works, and how we can adapt it to any scale, large or small. Jimmy Wales realized that multiple heads are better than one, and has acted accordingly by creating an open base. He literally has a free staff of hundreds of millions. What is the end result? Vladimir alluded to to two important schools of thought that clash. Qualitative vs. quantative- which is superior? There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia. I attached a link of Wales talking about it- http://vimeo.com/23348756 While it still needs to be perfected, it is a fine model for other companies to follow. Ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins plans to open an online service where customers mix and match their own flavors and give input how to improve. Most companies will eventually go the route of having the masses play the role of the main contributers. [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)		Wikipedia is a is a fine model of our society. It shows how well the democratic process works, and how we can adapt it to any scale, large or small. Jimmy Wales realized that multiple heads are better than one, and has acted accordingly by creating an open base. He literally has a free staff of hundreds of millions. What is the end result? Vladimir alluded to to two important schools of thought that clash. Qualitative vs. quantative- which is superior? There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia. I attached a link of Wales talking about it- http://vimeo.com/23348756 While it still needs to be perfected, it is a fine model for other companies to follow. Ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins plans to open an online service where customers mix and match their own flavors and give input how to improve. Most companies will eventually go the route of having the masses play the role of the main contributers. [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

			I agree, Elisha, a fine model, but a part of me is old school in the sense that I do believe in hiearchical governance in companies. So many talk about lateral organizations taking over, and I disagree. It's easier said than done--a lot of politics involved. Instead of thinking it can be applied to companies, I think it can be applied within companies (e.g. board groups, affinity groups, policy groups). These groups are in a position to delegate tasks and rotate members/leaders).[[User:Myra\|Myra]] 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


	As I was searching for materials related to Prof. Zittrain's Generativity theory, I found quite interesting websites that might help other classmates who want to better understand this term.		As I was searching for materials related to Prof. Zittrain's Generativity theory, I found quite interesting websites that might help other classmates who want to better understand this term.
	*[http://ssrn.com/abstract=847124 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 28/2006; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006/1]		*[http://ssrn.com/abstract=847124 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 28/2006; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006/1]

Elishasurillo at 17:14, 6 May 2011

2011-05-06T17:14:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:14, 6 May 2011
Line 72:		Line 72:

	So much for Wikipedia and so little about Academia as we've been hearing and reading so far. It could probably mean that there is a clash of ambitions between scholars and free lancers. Each of us has attempted to measure the intellectual climate, sort of speak, in the area of our interests and now we have formed our reports and opinions about which no body really cares. Our opinions are only for the purpose of this course, not for the purpose of creation of policy, so as opinions of millions of others who attempted to make changes to Wikipedia but lost their rights due to lack of authority. This is what ultimately matters the most as Chris Anderson is simply begging the question on [[NPR]] about the efficiency of the review process: a review by three fellows with a doctorate versus a review by the bunch of scholars with degrees from the university of life is the quantitative approach. The qualitative approach perhaps, not of the major concern but participation is. Ok, an average user might say, the participation will build a virtual community that could educate itself after time. Well, good luck with that virtual degree, virtual job, and virtual personal life, an average scholar might say. The reality just does not work that way and fiction should not be a part of it. The web governing organization, as Henry Jenkins describes in his article "Science Fiction and Smart Mobs" [http://www.technologyreview.com/web/13053/page1/], remains unofficial but its possible function is sketched out in the Ellis's book "Global Frequency"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Frequency]. The real Wikipedia agents however, unlike agents of "Global Frequency", are unable to enforce the policy and contribute their intelligence to the real society. Then, the question rises why we even considering Wikipedia as a model of a wider web space a proper control of which we are attempting to establish? --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)		So much for Wikipedia and so little about Academia as we've been hearing and reading so far. It could probably mean that there is a clash of ambitions between scholars and free lancers. Each of us has attempted to measure the intellectual climate, sort of speak, in the area of our interests and now we have formed our reports and opinions about which no body really cares. Our opinions are only for the purpose of this course, not for the purpose of creation of policy, so as opinions of millions of others who attempted to make changes to Wikipedia but lost their rights due to lack of authority. This is what ultimately matters the most as Chris Anderson is simply begging the question on [[NPR]] about the efficiency of the review process: a review by three fellows with a doctorate versus a review by the bunch of scholars with degrees from the university of life is the quantitative approach. The qualitative approach perhaps, not of the major concern but participation is. Ok, an average user might say, the participation will build a virtual community that could educate itself after time. Well, good luck with that virtual degree, virtual job, and virtual personal life, an average scholar might say. The reality just does not work that way and fiction should not be a part of it. The web governing organization, as Henry Jenkins describes in his article "Science Fiction and Smart Mobs" [http://www.technologyreview.com/web/13053/page1/], remains unofficial but its possible function is sketched out in the Ellis's book "Global Frequency"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Frequency]. The real Wikipedia agents however, unlike agents of "Global Frequency", are unable to enforce the policy and contribute their intelligence to the real society. Then, the question rises why we even considering Wikipedia as a model of a wider web space a proper control of which we are attempting to establish? --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


			Wikipedia is a is a fine model of our society. It shows how well the democratic process works, and how we can adapt it to any scale, large or small. Jimmy Wales realized that multiple heads are better than one, and has acted accordingly by creating an open base. He literally has a free staff of hundreds of millions. What is the end result? Vladimir alluded to to two important schools of thought that clash. Qualitative vs. quantative- which is superior? There is plenty of misinformation on Wikipedia. I attached a link of Wales talking about it- http://vimeo.com/23348756 While it still needs to be perfected, it is a fine model for other companies to follow. Ice cream chain Baskin-Robbins plans to open an online service where customers mix and match their own flavors and give input how to improve. Most companies will eventually go the route of having the masses play the role of the main contributers. [[User:Elishasurillo\|Elishasurillo]] 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Quill80: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-22T20:04:39Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 22 February 2011
Line 46:		Line 46:
	== Class Discussion ==		== Class Discussion ==
	Wikipedia’s norms were the most thought provoking and entertaining subjects of last weeks readings for me. The emergence of the rules of behavior for Wikipedia, many of which seem to be just as valid and useful during the non-plugged in moments of our daily life, strikes me as being as unique and interesting as the overall notion of Wikipedia it self, if not more so. Some of the basics like apology and civility are pretty standard and not overly surprising in their development. Others however, like, “Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass” are excellent, and I would like to post on my companies intranet as a new code of conduct, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass) . Of equal importance is humor as a norm. A norm which I believe if given more play in our daily (political) lives, might save lives around the globe. Such as, the, “No one cares about your garage band norm,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band). Read: "Keep yourself in perspective." Again, not to state the obvious, but I would imagine others who read this may have been struck by the attractiveness of applying these or very similar norms to our daily working environment outside of the Wikipedia world. [[User:Coreymacd\|Coreymacd]] 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)		Wikipedia’s norms were the most thought provoking and entertaining subjects of last weeks readings for me. The emergence of the rules of behavior for Wikipedia, many of which seem to be just as valid and useful during the non-plugged in moments of our daily life, strikes me as being as unique and interesting as the overall notion of Wikipedia it self, if not more so. Some of the basics like apology and civility are pretty standard and not overly surprising in their development. Others however, like, “Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass” are excellent, and I would like to post on my companies intranet as a new code of conduct, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass) . Of equal importance is humor as a norm. A norm which I believe if given more play in our daily (political) lives, might save lives around the globe. Such as, the, “No one cares about your garage band norm,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band). Read: "Keep yourself in perspective." Again, not to state the obvious, but I would imagine others who read this may have been struck by the attractiveness of applying these or very similar norms to our daily working environment outside of the Wikipedia world. [[User:Coreymacd\|Coreymacd]] 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


	The pattern of emerging of a Generative System was particularly interesting. The power of the five qualities (leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, accessibility and transferability) and the reciprocity between them allowed a better understanding of the Generative pattern and how it can influence innovation both in positive and negative ways.		The pattern of emerging of a Generative System was particularly interesting. The power of the five qualities (leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, accessibility and transferability) and the reciprocity between them allowed a better understanding of the Generative pattern and how it can influence innovation both in positive and negative ways.
	Already, the emergence of a collective, collaborative generative system is apparent in diverse forms in the cyberspace. However what I found most interesting (and enthusiastically agree with) is Zittrain’s mention of how this change in the cyberspace is making general societal, cultural and political changes in the real, non-cyberspace world.		Already, the emergence of a collective, collaborative generative system is apparent in diverse forms in the cyberspace. However what I found most interesting (and enthusiastically agree with) is Zittrain’s mention of how this change in the cyberspace is making general societal, cultural and political changes in the real, non-cyberspace world.
	[[User:Quill80\|Quill80]] 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)		[[User:Quill80\|Quill80]] 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

	As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.		As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.

Quill80: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-22T20:04:07Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 22 February 2011
Line 47:		Line 47:
	Wikipedia’s norms were the most thought provoking and entertaining subjects of last weeks readings for me. The emergence of the rules of behavior for Wikipedia, many of which seem to be just as valid and useful during the non-plugged in moments of our daily life, strikes me as being as unique and interesting as the overall notion of Wikipedia it self, if not more so. Some of the basics like apology and civility are pretty standard and not overly surprising in their development. Others however, like, “Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass” are excellent, and I would like to post on my companies intranet as a new code of conduct, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass) . Of equal importance is humor as a norm. A norm which I believe if given more play in our daily (political) lives, might save lives around the globe. Such as, the, “No one cares about your garage band norm,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band). Read: "Keep yourself in perspective." Again, not to state the obvious, but I would imagine others who read this may have been struck by the attractiveness of applying these or very similar norms to our daily working environment outside of the Wikipedia world. [[User:Coreymacd\|Coreymacd]] 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)		Wikipedia’s norms were the most thought provoking and entertaining subjects of last weeks readings for me. The emergence of the rules of behavior for Wikipedia, many of which seem to be just as valid and useful during the non-plugged in moments of our daily life, strikes me as being as unique and interesting as the overall notion of Wikipedia it self, if not more so. Some of the basics like apology and civility are pretty standard and not overly surprising in their development. Others however, like, “Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass” are excellent, and I would like to post on my companies intranet as a new code of conduct, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass) . Of equal importance is humor as a norm. A norm which I believe if given more play in our daily (political) lives, might save lives around the globe. Such as, the, “No one cares about your garage band norm,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band). Read: "Keep yourself in perspective." Again, not to state the obvious, but I would imagine others who read this may have been struck by the attractiveness of applying these or very similar norms to our daily working environment outside of the Wikipedia world. [[User:Coreymacd\|Coreymacd]] 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)



			The pattern of emerging of a Generative System was particularly interesting. The power of the five qualities (leverage, adaptability, ease of mastery, accessibility and transferability) and the reciprocity between them allowed a better understanding of the Generative pattern and how it can influence innovation both in positive and negative ways.
			Already, the emergence of a collective, collaborative generative system is apparent in diverse forms in the cyberspace. However what I found most interesting (and enthusiastically agree with) is Zittrain’s mention of how this change in the cyberspace is making general societal, cultural and political changes in the real, non-cyberspace world.
			[[User:Quill80\|Quill80]] 20:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.		As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.

Yu Ri: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-20T14:21:30Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 20 February 2011
Line 70:		Line 70:

	So much for Wikipedia and so little about Academia as we've been hearing and reading so far. It could probably mean that there is a clash of ambitions between scholars and free lancers. Each of us has attempted to measure the intellectual climate, sort of speak, in the area of our interests and now we have formed our reports and opinions about which no body really cares. Our opinions are only for the purpose of this course, not for the purpose of creation of policy, so as opinions of millions of others who attempted to make changes to Wikipedia but lost their rights due to lack of authority. This is what ultimately matters the most as Chris Anderson is simply begging the question on [[NPR]] about the efficiency of the review process: a review by three fellows with a doctorate versus a review by the bunch of scholars with degrees from the university of life is the quantitative approach. The qualitative approach perhaps, not of the major concern but participation is. Ok, an average user might say, the participation will build a virtual community that could educate itself after time. Well, good luck with that virtual degree, virtual job, and virtual personal life, an average scholar might say. The reality just does not work that way and fiction should not be a part of it. The web governing organization, as Henry Jenkins describes in his article "Science Fiction and Smart Mobs" [http://www.technologyreview.com/web/13053/page1/], remains unofficial but its possible function is sketched out in the Ellis's book "Global Frequency"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Frequency]. The real Wikipedia agents however, unlike agents of "Global Frequency", are unable to enforce the policy and contribute their intelligence to the real society. Then, the question rises why we even considering Wikipedia as a model of a wider web space a proper control of which we are attempting to establish? --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)		So much for Wikipedia and so little about Academia as we've been hearing and reading so far. It could probably mean that there is a clash of ambitions between scholars and free lancers. Each of us has attempted to measure the intellectual climate, sort of speak, in the area of our interests and now we have formed our reports and opinions about which no body really cares. Our opinions are only for the purpose of this course, not for the purpose of creation of policy, so as opinions of millions of others who attempted to make changes to Wikipedia but lost their rights due to lack of authority. This is what ultimately matters the most as Chris Anderson is simply begging the question on [[NPR]] about the efficiency of the review process: a review by three fellows with a doctorate versus a review by the bunch of scholars with degrees from the university of life is the quantitative approach. The qualitative approach perhaps, not of the major concern but participation is. Ok, an average user might say, the participation will build a virtual community that could educate itself after time. Well, good luck with that virtual degree, virtual job, and virtual personal life, an average scholar might say. The reality just does not work that way and fiction should not be a part of it. The web governing organization, as Henry Jenkins describes in his article "Science Fiction and Smart Mobs" [http://www.technologyreview.com/web/13053/page1/], remains unofficial but its possible function is sketched out in the Ellis's book "Global Frequency"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Frequency]. The real Wikipedia agents however, unlike agents of "Global Frequency", are unable to enforce the policy and contribute their intelligence to the real society. Then, the question rises why we even considering Wikipedia as a model of a wider web space a proper control of which we are attempting to establish? --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


			As I was searching for materials related to Prof. Zittrain's Generativity theory, I found quite interesting websites that might help other classmates who want to better understand this term.
			*[http://ssrn.com/abstract=847124 Zittrain, Jonathan, The Generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 119, p. 1974, May 2006; Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 28/2006; Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006/1]
			*[http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/09/future-of-the-internet-symposium-generative-end-hosts-vs-generative-networks.html 'Future of the Internet Symposium: Generative End Hosts vs. Generative Networks?' posted by Barbara van Schewick]
			In particular, I was intrigued by the double natures of generativity of the Internet. According to Zittrain's explanation, generativity - the platform for creation and innovation - also possesses threats in itself (e.g. widespread of viruses and other badwares). Would it be possible to maintain generativity without compromising to reduce malicious codes floating around the digital world? --[[User:Yu Ri\|Yu Ri]] 14:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

	== Links ==		== Links ==

Coreymacd: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-17T21:27:03Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:27, 17 February 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:

	== Class Discussion ==		== Class Discussion ==
			Wikipedia’s norms were the most thought provoking and entertaining subjects of last weeks readings for me. The emergence of the rules of behavior for Wikipedia, many of which seem to be just as valid and useful during the non-plugged in moments of our daily life, strikes me as being as unique and interesting as the overall notion of Wikipedia it self, if not more so. Some of the basics like apology and civility are pretty standard and not overly surprising in their development. Others however, like, “Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass” are excellent, and I would like to post on my companies intranet as a new code of conduct, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass) . Of equal importance is humor as a norm. A norm which I believe if given more play in our daily (political) lives, might save lives around the globe. Such as, the, “No one cares about your garage band norm,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_one_cares_about_your_garage_band). Read: "Keep yourself in perspective." Again, not to state the obvious, but I would imagine others who read this may have been struck by the attractiveness of applying these or very similar norms to our daily working environment outside of the Wikipedia world. [[User:Coreymacd\|Coreymacd]] 21:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)



	As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.		As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.

VladimirK: /* Class Discussion */

2011-02-17T05:43:25Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 17 February 2011
Line 47:		Line 47:
	As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.		As per Zittrain's argument, I found that his reasoning about "affordance" and "adoptabilty", although defined with great deal of common sense, has enough ambiguity to start questioning ourselves about that tipping point at which the environment's affardances take over the user's adoptability. The point is difficult to trace in the light of constantly changing user interfaces that in turn are sensitive to changes in hardware. It seems that Zittrain wants the reader to complete his thought. As in the bicycle example, the environment is meant to compete for more users by adding value in a form of a new hardware and then dressing it up with a new, often more complex user interface. This motion triggers the action on the user's side where after the initial opportunity cost, users attempt to improve the interface, often falling behind on the hardware due to its cost. This is where the peer-production and collaboration takes place that is defined by users' "four-freedoms" and stimulated by systems' "generativity". Now everything seems reasonable in the market terms, but when the added-value concept is applied to Wikipedia, it just does not make sense because there is no classic law of supply and demand can be applicable to the intellectual property market, nor there is a right of ownership. There is a marginal social benefit however, but again, it is unmanaged and therefore no accuracy guaranteed and thus it cannot be a beneficial nomenclature as for instance a library is.

	After yesterday's meeting with a guy who has a doctorate in the field of Wikipedia, it remains unclear, or perhaps completely unanswered, whether Wikipedia, as any other entity on the market of "intellectual goods and services", should have its ultimate authority and who that authority might be. I often wonder how else I could have phrased the question on a person's native language to obtain a straightforward answer. I know one thing for sure based on years of seminar experience that if a scholar is not answering the question directly or asking for reinterpretation, he or she is probably a dilettante. Anyway I am thankful for his marvelous answers and his efforts to take a trip to Cambridge, Massachusetts. --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)		After yesterday's meeting with a guy who has a doctorate in the field of Wikipedia, it remains unclear, or perhaps completely unanswered, whether Wikipedia, as any other entity on the market of "intellectual goods and services", should have its ultimate authority and who that authority might be. I often wonder how else I could have phrased the question on a person's native language to obtain a straightforward answer. I know one thing for sure based on years of seminar experience that if a scholar is not answering the question directly or asking for reinterpretation, he or she is probably a dilettante. Anyway, I am thankful for his marvelous answers and his efforts to take a trip to Cambridge, Massachusetts. --[[User:VladimirK\|VladimirK]] 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)