Sunday, April 27, 2008

What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

Dr. Alex Bruns defines produsage as In collaborative communities the creation of shared content takes place in a networked, participatory environment which breaks down the boundaries between producers and consumers and instead enables all participants to be users as well as producers of information and knowledge - frequently in a hybrid role of produser where usage is necessarily also productive. (link)

He goes on to outline four distinct characteristics of produsage that contrast with traditional commercial production.

1. no direct problem solving, rather solutions to problems arise because there are more people that can find a solution. ‘in the bottom-up holoptic model participants can self-nominate as contributors to specific problem-solving activities as their interest is triggered; the more participants do so, and the more such activities run in parallel at the same time, the more likely it is that a solution is found’ (link).

2. In direct contrast to traditional commercial production where a project manager is in control of where and how participants will contribute, produsage sees a more open community where people can choose to participate when, where and how they choose.

3. “granularity of tasks” – means if the project can be divided into individual modules, and if the modules further break down into distinct tasks requiring a limited set of skills and a limited degree of user investment, this boosts both the potential for the development of solutions through probabilistic approaches (as trial-and-error experiments become less costly for participants) and the equipotentiality of contributors (as it becomes easier for all community members to participate). (link).


4. the notion of sharing, not owning content. This flies in the face of traditional commerce where business and market based economies relies on retaining ownership. Whereas produsage is more open, sharing and has full disclosure.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?

Some people say that the main difference is this

According to Tim O'Reilly, Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.

This 2.0 term refers to the way developers use the internet as opposed to any advance in technology.
Web 2.0 describes a shift to participation where users can contribute and engage sites, creating a conversation with sites that take advantage of available applications, services and unique features of the Internet.

Examples of this are: eBay, craigslist, wikipedia

Web 1.0 used static pages where owners of the website retained the data and controlled what users could use and view whereas 2.0 is all about free flow of data and allowing users to modify, control and interact with the data.

Knemeyer states that 2.0 is about user control of content… websites that behave more like thick client applications…. web products that are designed to facilitate network effects and serve as a co-collaborative space between the product’s provider and the user community.

This characteristic is describes by Decrem as “The Participatory Web” and explains how the new platform is all about contribution, sharing and a focus on the user experience.

Examples of this participatory web are sites like blogger where users can generate content, share it with the web community and receive feedback via comments on their content.
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> blogging
evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
publishing --> participation
content management systems --> wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
stickiness --> syndication
link


Thursday, April 3, 2008

How do technologies become cultural technologies?

Terry Flew explains that we first need to look at the three levels of understanding technologies:Understanding technologies not simply as physical objects tools and artefacts.Recognising the content they produce and their contexts of use.And the systems of knowledge that accompany their use and development.

Once we understand that technology can be merely a tool used to create something or interact with others in society and thus impact on, and enhance culture. When this starts happening, we start to see the role of the technology changing from being a tool, to becoming part of the culture itself. Think about myspace of facebook. These technologies have augmented culture and in the same right, become a form of culture themselves.

'The concept of cultural technologies is a way of understanding technologies not simply as material forms that impact upon culture, but rather as themselves cultural forms' (Flew T.2005)

Langdon (in Flew) sums it up by saying that "technologies are not merely aids to human activity but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning".

Flew, T. (2005). New Media