Peer Production and Collaboration: Difference between revisions
m (→Links: provided alterative link for NASA Clickworkers sight) |
(→Class Discussion: Added thoughts on wikipedia) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
== Class Discussion == | == Class Discussion == | ||
Listening to, and reading, various pieces on Wikipedia I am struck by the amount of effort that Jimmy Wales seems to put into promoting the idea of Wikipedia as, to paraphrase, "a close-knit community of dedicated users" with emphasis on user reputation and his role as "benevolent dictator", and distancing himself from the more "democratic" (read: anonymous contributors) aspects of the site which (I assume) are generally the first things that come to most peoples' minds when Wikipedia is mentioned. I wonder if this attitude was always a core part of the site's conception, or whether it was developed in response to outside criticism of the encyclopedia’s (lack of) credibility. Or if it is merely an accurate description of how the site has evolved... I would hazard to guess that Wikipedia, despite what Mr. Wales may say, is *both* a close-knit community *and* a conglomeration of faceless, unorganized (naturally organizing?) "ants"; I doubt the site could survive without both aspects. I am also struck by the parallel between this view and the criticism of Wikipedia skeptics: they see "peer review" being essential, where a "peer" is a responsible member of the academic community, while Mr. Wales sees "peer review" as equally essential, only with "peer" defined as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community. I wonder that seems to occur to no one that the "Wikipedia community" (let alone the "faceless ants") might very well contain those self-same learned academics who compose and edit articles for Britanica. And if companies are hiring PR agents to "protect" their image on Wikipedia, then I wonder why University faculties have not taken it upon themselves to jointly, publicly venture into Wikipedia to improve the quality of the articles found there in. Surely, after 10 years we should have started to take this thing seriously. | |||
[[User:BrandonAndrzej|BrandonAndrzej]] 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Links == | == Links == | ||
Revision as of 20:57, 14 February 2011
February 15
The free software movement is one example of a trend towards distributed volunteer networks of individuals collaborating on collective projects that were formerly the domain of the for-profit private sector. In this session, we explore how far such peer production can go in redefining the economic and social structures of modern society.
Readings
- Yochai Benkler, News, Information and the Wealth of Networks (watch from 8:32 to 26:07)
- Zittrain, Chapter 4: The Generative Pattern
- Joseph Reagle, ”Be Nice”: Wikipedia Norms for Supportive Communication
Additional Resources
The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:
- Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web
- Wikipedia Wins Users and Critics by Jenny Lawton
- Wikipedia's Growth Comes with Concerns by Laura Sydell
Class Discussion
Listening to, and reading, various pieces on Wikipedia I am struck by the amount of effort that Jimmy Wales seems to put into promoting the idea of Wikipedia as, to paraphrase, "a close-knit community of dedicated users" with emphasis on user reputation and his role as "benevolent dictator", and distancing himself from the more "democratic" (read: anonymous contributors) aspects of the site which (I assume) are generally the first things that come to most peoples' minds when Wikipedia is mentioned. I wonder if this attitude was always a core part of the site's conception, or whether it was developed in response to outside criticism of the encyclopedia’s (lack of) credibility. Or if it is merely an accurate description of how the site has evolved... I would hazard to guess that Wikipedia, despite what Mr. Wales may say, is *both* a close-knit community *and* a conglomeration of faceless, unorganized (naturally organizing?) "ants"; I doubt the site could survive without both aspects. I am also struck by the parallel between this view and the criticism of Wikipedia skeptics: they see "peer review" being essential, where a "peer" is a responsible member of the academic community, while Mr. Wales sees "peer review" as equally essential, only with "peer" defined as a responsible member of the Wikipedia community. I wonder that seems to occur to no one that the "Wikipedia community" (let alone the "faceless ants") might very well contain those self-same learned academics who compose and edit articles for Britanica. And if companies are hiring PR agents to "protect" their image on Wikipedia, then I wonder why University faculties have not taken it upon themselves to jointly, publicly venture into Wikipedia to improve the quality of the articles found there in. Surely, after 10 years we should have started to take this thing seriously. BrandonAndrzej 00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Links
Chris Anderson: People Power
Business Week: The Power of Us
Nasa: Clickworkers Study
- the link to the NASA Clickworkers Study seems to be broken. Here is a link to the program's home page --Gclinch 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yochai Benkler's Seminal Work on Peer Production: Coase's Penguin
Jimbo Wales: Talk on the Wikipedia Community