Difference between revisions of "Peer Production and Collaboration"

From Technologies of Politics and Control
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 
Very impressive points by Benkler, great summation.  I'm very curious about his idea that even further expansion of the sorts of things that are peer sourced will continue inexorably.  I agree with him, but I can't see how that will work in some cases where the goods are too integral to a specific industry or company's survival.  It may be well and good that the online group can produce wiki entries or sift through pictures of Mars, but what happens when the task that needs to be completed is one that only a small handful of extremely highly trained experts can do?  What about heart surgery techniques, or certain complex nuclear systems?  The examples I make aren't perfect but I hope the point is clear.  Those experts need a large framework both to be created and supported as they work (through the large cost of schooling, training, getting experience, sustaining work with expensive materials, etc.)  Whether the companies pay that or whether the "future experts" pay it themselves with the promise of a high-paying job that will recoup their expenses when they become full experts, that is still a very very expensive system.  Can it exist in a world where there is so much less profit attached, and where the other functions that company used to perform and fill its coffers with are now totally outsourced to the online crowd?  I know this is in some ways a rehashing of the classic "Innovation is Good and Can Happen Free!! vs. You Have To Allow Patents and Profit or Innovation Dies!!" argument, but I'm curious about the ripple effect that can have.  ([[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC))
 
Very impressive points by Benkler, great summation.  I'm very curious about his idea that even further expansion of the sorts of things that are peer sourced will continue inexorably.  I agree with him, but I can't see how that will work in some cases where the goods are too integral to a specific industry or company's survival.  It may be well and good that the online group can produce wiki entries or sift through pictures of Mars, but what happens when the task that needs to be completed is one that only a small handful of extremely highly trained experts can do?  What about heart surgery techniques, or certain complex nuclear systems?  The examples I make aren't perfect but I hope the point is clear.  Those experts need a large framework both to be created and supported as they work (through the large cost of schooling, training, getting experience, sustaining work with expensive materials, etc.)  Whether the companies pay that or whether the "future experts" pay it themselves with the promise of a high-paying job that will recoup their expenses when they become full experts, that is still a very very expensive system.  Can it exist in a world where there is so much less profit attached, and where the other functions that company used to perform and fill its coffers with are now totally outsourced to the online crowd?  I know this is in some ways a rehashing of the classic "Innovation is Good and Can Happen Free!! vs. You Have To Allow Patents and Profit or Innovation Dies!!" argument, but I'm curious about the ripple effect that can have.  ([[User:AlexLE|AlexLE]] 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC))
 +
 +
I found Yochai Benkler’s speech to be very interesting, especially when he talked about individuals’ contribution to information in the BBC example that he gave. Another interesting aspect was that concerning democracy and the open sources of information.  For what concerns the Reagle article on Wikipedia, I found it to be very true. I have noticed on various occasions that disputes are very common over Wikipedia articles and they can be characterized by a variety of reasons going from differing personal ideals to politics and many other issues. The point is that people should focus more on the reason for which Wikipedia was created and put aside hatred and personal issues/debates and cooperate to make Wikipedia a better source of learning and not a forum where an online battle should take place. I really enjoyed the statement regarding conflict as being “Addictive as cocaine” and totally agree with it since human beings are attracted to conflict to a certain extent. I also agree with Reagle when he states that “The relative “anarchy” of wiki culture, the malleability of Wikipedia content, the pseudonymity of contributors, and its consensus-based decision-making make Wikipedia particularly vulnerable to such strategic action.” [[User:Emanuele|Emanuele]] 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  
 
== Links  ==
 
== Links  ==

Revision as of 15:51, 21 February 2012

February 21

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.


Assignments

Assignment 2 due

Readings

Additional Resources

Joseph Reagle's book: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia

The following audio streams from NPR may be interesting:


Class Discussion

February 21: Peer Production and Collaboration

Just Johnny 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Great discussion with Yochai Benkler on economics of social production and politics. The Diebold example is a perfect indication of showing how this system of the “structured web” is effective in "offering visibility to more people" and easier for each "individual and small group to speak and be heard." Has anyone by chance seen the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy? If not, check it out ([[1]]), which gives a more in depth and detailed insight into the investigation Bev Harris and her associate Kathleen Wynne (Black Box Voting, Inc.) did to expose security weaknesses in electronic voting systems. Also demonstrates the "battle with institutional ecology" and how Benkler indicated the law usually "favors the incumbents and institutions” which is what you see happening in Harris’ case. Imagine if Harris would have started this investigation now with the increasing amount of online power that stems from individuals in the social sphere? Or for example, what we’ve recently seen with the power of public influence on legislation like SOPA/PIPA or with the Komen debacle. Could Harris have gone further or have state/county officials act much quicker? Possibly. I do agree and believe that it is easier to make a change or create these movements where “networked” individuals are banding together to act for various reasons be it politics, social injustice, etc and as Benkler puts it now on a “global, not only local" scale. JennLopez 23:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Very impressive points by Benkler, great summation. I'm very curious about his idea that even further expansion of the sorts of things that are peer sourced will continue inexorably. I agree with him, but I can't see how that will work in some cases where the goods are too integral to a specific industry or company's survival. It may be well and good that the online group can produce wiki entries or sift through pictures of Mars, but what happens when the task that needs to be completed is one that only a small handful of extremely highly trained experts can do? What about heart surgery techniques, or certain complex nuclear systems? The examples I make aren't perfect but I hope the point is clear. Those experts need a large framework both to be created and supported as they work (through the large cost of schooling, training, getting experience, sustaining work with expensive materials, etc.) Whether the companies pay that or whether the "future experts" pay it themselves with the promise of a high-paying job that will recoup their expenses when they become full experts, that is still a very very expensive system. Can it exist in a world where there is so much less profit attached, and where the other functions that company used to perform and fill its coffers with are now totally outsourced to the online crowd? I know this is in some ways a rehashing of the classic "Innovation is Good and Can Happen Free!! vs. You Have To Allow Patents and Profit or Innovation Dies!!" argument, but I'm curious about the ripple effect that can have. (AlexLE 01:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

I found Yochai Benkler’s speech to be very interesting, especially when he talked about individuals’ contribution to information in the BBC example that he gave. Another interesting aspect was that concerning democracy and the open sources of information. For what concerns the Reagle article on Wikipedia, I found it to be very true. I have noticed on various occasions that disputes are very common over Wikipedia articles and they can be characterized by a variety of reasons going from differing personal ideals to politics and many other issues. The point is that people should focus more on the reason for which Wikipedia was created and put aside hatred and personal issues/debates and cooperate to make Wikipedia a better source of learning and not a forum where an online battle should take place. I really enjoyed the statement regarding conflict as being “Addictive as cocaine” and totally agree with it since human beings are attracted to conflict to a certain extent. I also agree with Reagle when he states that “The relative “anarchy” of wiki culture, the malleability of Wikipedia content, the pseudonymity of contributors, and its consensus-based decision-making make Wikipedia particularly vulnerable to such strategic action.” Emanuele 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Links